[arin-ppml] IPv6 in the Economist

[John Paul Morrison]

On 6/9/2008 2:39 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Robin, the problem here is summarized by the old Star Trek quote
> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
and
On 6/9/2008 10:32 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> If Brian just WANTS a portable block of IPv6 because he thinks it
> would be "cool to have" or that it would make him "special" then
> I'm sorry, but the Internet has been
> a commercial network for over a decade now, we really don't want
> a bunch of small fry experimenters on it anymore.  He needs to do
> what everyone else does and work within the system and get his
> numbering from someone larger.  Or if he must experiment, then he
> can go to work for some larger network, where his experimenting will
> be supervised by someone more knowledgeable.
>   
So make up your mind already! Is the Internet a commercial network, 
closed to garage do it-your-selfers and future innovators as you argue, 
or some kind of communal resource, shepherded by the wise old sages of 
the Internet for the benefit of the unwashed (but TCP/IP clothesline 
dried) masses??

I detect more than just a little sanctimonious BS here. You're telling 
one person wanting portable v6 addresses to shut up and go home, because 
the Internet is the big leagues now.
But then you're whining about NAT and the needs of the many.  Well if 
the Internet is a commerce and business driven enterprise, then this 
thing called The Market will decide how/when/if IPv6 resolves things - 
to all the little guys stuck with NAT or address space shortage - tough 
luck. The needs of the many only matter when they're spending money. 

On the other hand, if the community needs are to count for anything, 
IPv6 address portability ought to be factored in precisely to take care 
of the little guys, early adopters, and those who've learned from IPv4 
experience. If there are any lessons from the early days of IPv4, it's 
that if you got portable IPv4 space early on, you didn't get held 
hostage by service providers, didn't have to jump through address 
justification bureaucracy because of someone else's design and policy 
decisions, and you were given the chance to implement your network 
redundancy/multi-homing properly with BGP (again without being beholden 
to any service provider).

> You forget that you are on a network that has a lot of other people
> on it, and some of those people have severe problems due to the
> looming shortage of IPv4.  NAT and the other fancy footwork your advocating
> isn't going to help them due to the nature of their problems.  And,
> once IPv4 DOES runout, the number of people with problems is going
> to skyrocket.
>
> Of course, you don't give a God-dammed about those people, do you?
> As long as YOU have your IP numbers, screw the rest of the bastards.
>   
> Because, that is basically what your saying.
>
> I've been using the Internet since you thought that TCP/IP was
> a line you hung clothes on to dry, and I didn't sign on to create
> an exclusive club.  Neither did everyone else that helped set it up.
> It's a crying shame if your view prevails.
>
> Ted
>
>