[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[Kevin Kargel]

 Now that is patently untrue..  I got a speeding ticket in South Dakota
last year for 79 mph on the interstate and it cost me $73.  Agreed that
penalties are adjusted to the severity of the condition, but the Officer
is still not going to let you off because you say you need to go fast to
make your job more efficient.

As for the rest, I think you actually reinforced my point.  Thanks.

So far as I know, Legacy owners have no license from "the government"..
there is no piece of paper from "the government" giving them rights.
Maybe I am wrong, but I have not heard of such a document.  

I have already said that the Legacy owners need to be able to retain
what they have, if they choose to do so.

Yes ARIN can be replaced, as can any agreement ever made.  Look at most
of the treaties entered in to between the US and another governance.

Kevin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:14 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
> 
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> > Ah, but every rule and law we have in our society is more important 
> > than the human.  The highway patrol officer doesn't care that there 
> > was nobody else on the road when you were going 85mph 
> completely under 
> > control in a safe vehicle.. even if you did have a pressing need 
> > because you didn't organize your schedule efficiently..  
> Granted there 
> > are extenuating circumstances like life or limb, but I doubt being 
> > late for your job or working more efficiently would be accepted.
> 
> I think you misunderstand. These laws are created to protect the
> human(s): The person and occupants driving at unsafely high 
> speeds that put themselves and others at risk of serious 
> injury.  In the midwest, highway speed speed limits _are_ 
> higher. SD has 75mph, with a $5 fine and no points for the 
> first 5 mph over.  Montana has 80mph. These areas of the 
> midwest are flat, straight, are well maintained, have good 
> signage, and largely unpopulated with large safety margins. 
> High speeds there are not very dangerous to the driver or 
> other occupants. By contrast, the roads in say, New England, 
> hardly have a straight section, are often poorly maintained, 
> have poor signage, and don't have safety margins to contain 
> accidents to the roadway.  New England roads are barely safe 
> at any speed.  Putting race tires on a BMW or Corvette 
> changes nothing.
> 
> The highway patrolman does not care that the _speeder_ thought it was
> safe: The speeder isn't qualified to pass judgment on the 
> safety of the highway.  Others who were qualified, decided it 
> was unsafe at those speeds. And of course, speed limits were 
> reduced in the 70's not for safety (at least not primarilly 
> for safety), but for fuel efficiency so to reduce dependence 
> on foreign oil. This is also a social policy that benefits society.
> 
> Your example provides a good metaphor for the differences 
> between craft/operations and engineering for ISPs. Operations 
> people sometimes like to "speed", and because they don't 
> immediately "crash", they assert that it was therefore 
> "safe", just like the guy in the 'vette.  But an engineering 
> person comes along, 'does the math', and like the civil 
> engineer for the highway, calculates that the practice is 
> "unsafe", and that a rule against that practice should be adopted.
> 
> It would be ridiculous for the speeder to say:
> 
>   "I'm an experienced driver, and I think it is safe at 85mph. I don't
>   care what the civil engineer calculated, or policy required".
> 
> It would also be ridiculous for the operations people to say,
> essentially:
> 
>   "I'm an experienced administrator and I believe differently, and I
>   don't need any facts to justify my belief. I'm going to tell other
>   people it is safe, and hide the reasons that it isn't safe (with
>   hardball tactics)."
> 
> It seems entirely ridiculous, but I have actually experienced 
> operations people really saying such things (at the IETF 
> even!---Well, I should add those were NANOG/Vixie-associated 
> operations/craftspeople. That group has a greater propensity 
> for such statements.)
> 
> Of course, such incredible statements make more sense when 
> you realize they will make a great deal of money on the 
> unreliable practice, or will ingratiate themselves to their 
> cronys (who can then act later in conflict of interest).  But 
> just like the speeder, they are still often not qualified to 
> make those decisions, regardless of how many "cars they have 
> operated". Belief and faith does not refute science and math.  
> Belief motivated by money and cronyism is especially dubious.
> 
> Good social policy requires honesty and integrity, and solid 
> technical analysis of the impacts and cost/benefits.  People 
> play nice until some person or group figures out a way to 
> screw the others and make a lot of money for doing so.  No 
> one plays "hardball" for the hell of it;  they have 
> motivation: money and cronyism.  Tort law, the Law of Agency, 
> the Law of Corporations, Associations and Groups, the Law of 
> Trusts stands against this anti-social behavior, and provides 
> definitions of obligations, proper conduct, misconduct, and 
> legal procedures for reparation and redress.  But there are 
> often simpler ways to fix things.
> That things need to be fixed is certain once you can identify 
> people playing hardball, or behaving dishonestly, or 
> benefiting from a conflict of interest. Cronyism by itself 
> may not be that bad, but it is certain to be bad when it is 
> mixed with these other things, especially money.
> 
> > It would be great if we could make a policy that said "just be good 
> > and play nice with others" and everyone would do that..  
> but I don't 
> > really expect that to work.
> 
> You can work against those who don't have honesty and 
> integrity; those who play hardball, behave dishonestly, and 
> benefit from conflict of interest.  Resist corruption, even 
> if you benefit from it; _especially_ if you benefit from it.  
> Ignoring corruption just allows things to get worse. Be 
> patient; don't expect results overnight. Shining a light onto 
> corruption has always, and will always, prevail eventually.
> 
> But policy implies policing, and that requires some 
> introduction to law and justice. Civil society can't work 
> without some kind of coercion and penalty. Laws are not 
> suggestions.  But coercion and penalty must be consistent 
> with the laws and constitutions.  Coercion that is 
> inconsistent with laws and constitutions is unjust and is 
> simply a form of warlordism or gang rule; things that civil 
> society must oppose as a first order of business.
> 
> > BTW, I personally think we owe Legacy owners something.  
> Those were by 
> > and large the folks that jumped in and did the early experimenting, 
> > they spent the big chunks of R&D money when it was 
> expensive and paved 
> > the way for the rest of us.  We are living in the results of their 
> > work and dreams and adventurousness.  I think they actually 
> deserve a 
> > little extra consideration. So (imho) if they want to 
> continue using 
> > the IP space that was granted them back when nobody else cared or 
> > wanted it I say "More power to em"..  If they are not using 
> the space 
> > and see their way to return it I will think nicer things 
> about them, 
> > but I won't think bad things if they want to keep what they have.
> 
> Thanks for the sentiment.  I think legacy holders always 
> appreciate recognition of their efforts. However, more 
> significant than recognition is that legacy's already have a 
> license or lease agreement with the government that ARIN 
> isn't authorized to break. ARIN is just the latest agent of 
> the government, maintaining the government records that SRI 
> and Network Solutions previously maintained.
> 
> Let me give you another example: Many states have leased toll 
> roads to private companies. The private companies get to set 
> and collect tolls, and in return must maintain the roads. But 
> they do not _own_ the roads, and they cannot interrupt legacy 
> buried or overhead cables which have a previous permanent or 
> unexpired right-of-way agreement.  The state governments can 
> put someone else in charge, or do it themselves, again.
> Likewise, ARIN can be replaced, just like SRI and Netsol were 
> previously replaced.
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000   
> 
> 
>