[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 17 04:44:48 EST 2006

> I'm trying to understand your position:  The power company needs to
> build its own IP network in order to manage power systems at each
> home; their IP address assignments will be from their aggregatable
> block.
Given the push for BPL, it is not unlikely that the power companies
will simply implement BPL networks whether consumers use them
for network access or not, and, use said BPL network as their
preferred mechanism for device control.

(Note, I am not a fan of BPL and I think the FCC made serious errors
in allowing it to go forward.  However, what I want to see happen to
BPL and what I expect the power companies to do with it are separate

>> Likewise government would like to give each home a permanent
>> subnet from
>> "its addresses" for their use especially including advanced
>> EMS services
>> such that they can handle both 911 and direct fire alarms.  I wouldn't
>> be surprised if in a couple decades, your home City/County has your
>> properties IP address on your deed.
> I would be surprised.  IP addresses are not property, and are not
> transferable in that sense.
That's a political reality today.  Transferability would only take a
small amount of policy change.  Finally, the IP address described
in the paragraph above isn't being transferred, per se, the ownership
or control of the resource remains with the RIR operated by the City
or County.  The deed merely contains the number as an additional piece
of addressing data.  Street addresses are not property and are not
transferable in the sense you are thinking, either.  They are, however,
used to describe the location of parcels of property and do appear
on deeds.

>> I already have two ISP's serving my home; cable and DSL both and will
>> probably add an EVDO link with a third.  In my case, because of the
>> incredibly poor physical plant in my area, neither are very reliable.
>> Try this list, you can validate it with some of the folks working
>> community networking:
>> - Internet Service Provider
>> - Entertainment Service Provider
>> - Home Application Service Provider
>> - Government Services
>> - Communication Service Provider
>> - Power Provider
>> - Metering Provider
>> - EMS (911 and fire alarm)
>> - Security Service Provider
>> None of these will be a simple single IP address either as most will
>> have multiple controls or sensors serving your home.
> Would a /64 be sufficient for each, do you think?  Especially if
> they're not from a single aggregate block, this would be important
> to understand.
A /64 per house would probably be fine for some of the things above.
For some of them, a 128 per house might be adequate.  For some,
it will require more than one subnet (somewhere in the /48-/60
continuum, I would guess).
>> And no your ISP will NOT work as the sole provider of my home IP's!
>> I'll personally fight that on capital hill!
> This is the place to fight for that, not Capitol Hill.
If we fail to address it here, however, Capitol Hill will eventually
do what they think is right.

>> We fought for the right not
>> to be forced to switch phone numbers when we move and I'm on
>> my 4th (or
>> 5th) ISP serving my home in the last ten years.  (AT&T, Earthlink,
>> Qwest, MSN, Speakeasy, and Comcast, ok 6th)  All of which provided me
>> with new IP's and email addresses which had no relation to any my
>> previous ones so I had to contact everyone I emailed with and
>> have them
>> update my email address.  Bill paying services make this even
>> worse!  It
>> takes months to get them all updated; one-at-a-time.
> Just to make sure I understand your position:
> You'd rather have nine provider aggregated addresses (counting networks
> above) than one (PI or PA) address?
What I believe he is saying is that he would have 9 PA addresses used
by the providers, but, that he wants a PI block in addition to that
for his own use because he doesn't want to change his addresses just
because his providers changed theirs when he moved.

> There are some differences here.  Your choice of local phone carriers
> has been extremely limited.  The local carrier has physical facilities
> to your house; now the cable company and power company also have
> facilities.  An ISP provides a service using those facilities.  They
> may provide multiple services, including routing (pretty essential, and
> requiring aggregatable addressing) and maybe also email, but these are
> disjoint: there's no reason your Internet access provider has to be your
> email provider.

Given the ability to move a phone number from an ILEC/CLEC to a cellular
provider, then move that number virtually anywhere in the US (and in some
cases the world), the facilities argument about telephone carriers is
much less relevant today than it used to be.  Bottom line is that LNP
as relates to NANP really does provide a good model for what we should
at least view as a desirable goal for internet addressing.

There will need to be changes to the current routing paradigm in order
to facilitate this, but, right now, it seems like there isn't a lot
of recognition that this is necessary by many of the parties involved
in development.

I'm not sure exactly which part of his view of the future he wants
or expects either, Lee, but, I think that a future including a mixture
of all of them is not that unlikely.


If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060317/a1970688/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list