[arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4 Scarcity
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Nov 12 17:17:06 EST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:48 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4 Scarcity
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:54, Ted Mittelstaedt
> <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> >> On Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:15 AM
> >> To: Kevin Kargel
> >> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4 Scarcity
> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 05:46, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > You are not alone Seth.. The old school types with ethics
> >> will stick
> >> > up for the small guy and the anarchist.. It is the new
> types that
> >> > care only about maximizing short term profit from the
> internet that
> >> > are pushing these unnecessary rules.
> >> I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. For one thing, the
> >> short term profit guys are the ones pushing paid transfers, hard.
> > No. The short term profit guys don't give a fig about paid
> > because a business model based on paid transfers is not
> sustainable -
> > there is not enough IPv4 left to satisfy the demand for IP
> > The short term profit guys care about business models that
> > -regularly- generate money for the forseeable future.
> > Domain registries are a textbook example of short term profit.
> Regularly generating money into the future and creating cash
> today, which has "short term profit" in mind?
I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. My opinion of a short term
money guy is someone who wants to put as small as possible, a fixed
amount of money into an enterprise, and get a larger amount back out,
then repeat the process over and over.
They aren't interested in spending a larger amount of money to create
anything permanent that will last beyond their involvement in the
Short term profit is called for in certain circumstances. For example
if your building an apartment building, the builders (not the guys who
actually own the building) must design the erection job as a short
term profit job. It's not their fault that the building owners
are intending to tear the strip mall down 20 years later after they
have milked it dry. But the process of constructing the building
is definitely short term - once the building is constructed, your
not needed anymore. Thus, I don't regard the short term profit approach
as a flawed business model.
Speculation on the other hand, is by definition a flawed business
model. Speculators feast off the misfortune of other people for the
most part, and rarely create lasting value. A healthily running industry
little opportunity for speculation. Unfortunately, we have had numerous
examples of this recently in the US and how much damage that speculation
can create if allowed to go out of control.
> > The guys pushing paid transfers are speculators, they are the same
> > people buying up expired domain names by the hundreds,
> hoping out of
> > the 100 names they tie up, 2 or 3 will be worth something.
> > are cut from the same cloth. These people are scum of the Internet
> > and create no value-add whatsoever.
> Agreed (mostly).
> >> This (non)proposal is attempting to minimize
> >> the short term profit affects and enable a realistic transition to
> >> IPv6.
> > Define realistic transition to IPv6, please. How is keeping IPv4
> > alive helping this? It's not like we haven't been warned for years.
> Yes we have been warned for years and that is part of the
> point I am making below when I say that most (people,
> organizations, governments,
> etc) need incentives to do the "right" thing. If everyone
> (or even some great enough percentage of everyone) had taken
> the hint(s) and adopted dual-stacked networks and
> applications over the past years, this conversation would be
> far less urgent. At this point, AIUI, there is not enough
> IPv4 addresses left available for a successful transition to IPv6.
> I would define a realistic/successful transition to IPv6 as
> one that allows incumbents to continue operating and
> simultaneously keeps the system open (i.e. a low barrier to
> entry). In other words, we must maintain open access to the
> IPv4 Internet until the IPv6 Internet is a truly viable
> replacement for the community at large (enterprise,
> education, end user, etc).
Let's say that today, there's 254,354,123 people connected to the
Internet through their various PeeCees, Mac's, Commodore 64's,
DEC Vt100 terminals, you-name-it.
All are connected via IPv4.
At the end of the day, the very last IPv4 number is assigned to the
254,354,124th person to connect to the Internet.
Tomorrow, the 254,354,125th person knocks on my ISP's door and
says he wants to connect his PeeCee to the Internet.
All that the IPv6 transition means is that I will have to look
him in the eye and say "No problem - but you MUST be running
Linux, or XPSP2, or Tiger, or Vista if you want a public IP
address. We can't connect your
Windows 98/Commodore-64/RadioShack Trash 80 any longer UNLESS
your happy with an RFC1918 translated number behind an http
I see nothing here that prevents the incumbents - whether they
be small or large ISPs - from continuing to operate.
Incumbents that wait until they run out of IPv4 before building
their IPv6->IPv4 proxy systems are going to screw themselves,
obviously. That is why we need to educate more people, and why
larger networks need to make native IPv6 available to their
smaller ISP customers ASAP. Currently, the list of networks that
do so is regrettably small.
But from the client side, have you been to Fry's Electronics lately?
The cost for client Winders PeeCees is, to put it mildly, NOT a
barrier to IPv6 entry, not for the end user. And as for businesses
who are still on Windows 2K and earlier - pick up the clue phone,
Sure, people who SERVE files out on websites and who make other
services available had jolly well best get their act together and
make sure their software runs on IPv6, pronto. But I don't have
any sympathy for any of those people who are caught with their
figurative pants down. They are being PAID by their customers to
know what they are doing!!
Could you be more specific on this barrier of entry thing?
> >> It further attempts to keep the system
> >> open and not controlled by a few large players who have
> the money to
> >> buy up all that space (where do the small guys and
> anarchists stand
> >> on this?). I wish that this type of rule was in fact unnecessary,
> > It IS! The sooner that IPv4 resources are valueless, the better.
> So lets remove any false scarcity that exists by returning
> what is not needed and/or not being used. This starts with
> abandoned space but continues into space that is claimed but
> not being used; space that is forgotten, inefficiently
> applied, hoarded or otherwise not truly needed where it
> currently resides.
Why not start by trying to get a handle on how much of this
unused space is really out there. That is the point of your
active whois proposal, is it not?
Why not wait until that is implemented then see how much available
IPv4 is really out there?
> >> but people and organizations are
> >> proving that they will not do what is right unless they are paid
> >> (somehow) to do it.
> > Your casting a technological decision in moral terms. What is
> > "right"?
> I found that a couple of the definitions from
> Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary for the word "right"
> generally fit my meaning:
> > 10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved
> > her right>
> > 12: most favorable or desired : preferable ; also :
> socially acceptable <knew all the right people>
> > It seems to me your saying that "right" is to try to prolong IPv4.
> > I'm familiar with the arguments of why keeping the small
> guys on the
> > IPv4 bottle and pushing the large guys to the IPv6 teat is
> supposed to
> > be desirable. The fundamental argument is that it allows small
> > cash-poor ISPs to benefit from not having to pay extra to be
> > early-adopters.
> My intention is not to push one group ahead of others (or
> hold one group back).
> I am looking for ways to allow everyone (read; as many as absolutely
> possible) the ability to make this transition. IOW, I want
> to maintain the current open and self-regulated state of the
> Internet as closely as possible, throughout and beyond this
> protocol migration.
The job that takes the longest is the one that is never started.
Step 1 is getting IPv6 DEPLOYED at all of the top and mid-tier
networks BEFORE IPv4 runout occurs.
I do not believe that it is possible to hold the moral high ground
here and on one hand tell people that they must deploy IPv6 now
because it's the right thing to do, and on the other hand, work
at prolonging IPv4.
When the day comes that every ISP in business can call up their
peers and say "Turn on native IPv6 routing to us" then I think
we can turn our attention to trying to make a supply of IPv4
available to the little small guys who have decided to get out of
the rat race, stay on IPv4, and just allow their ISP businesses to
gracefully die away.
> > And, a few years ago this was true, in fact. Today? No!
> > The fct is that the expense of switching to IPv6 is mainly
> > at the CLIENT end, NOT the NETWORK part. And ISP's don't
> own a lot of
> > clients. Their customers do. And those customers are
> going to have
> > to pony up the money to switchover to IPv6 if they want to
> stay on the
> > Internet. And if they want to stay on the Internet with IPv4 only,
> > then they are going to quickly find that no ISP's will be
> willing to
> > let them do this without charging extra.
> > Ted
> >> Lastly, worrying more about the
> >> opex required to maintain efficient IP utilization than
> the good it
> >> does for the rest of the community sounds much more like a
> short term
> >> profit focused view than the old-school ethics and anarchy
> you elude
> >> to...
> >> >
> >> > Keep it up..
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> >> >> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:18 AM
> >> >> To: ppml at arin.net
> >> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4
> >> >> Scarcity
> >> >>
> >> >> Jo Rhett wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 11, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> >> >> >> The system seems to favor entities consuming space and
> >> >> wanting more.
> >> >> >> I assume I'll never request more space (I am not an ISP,
> >> >> so customer
> >> >> >> growth has no relation to my usage) or by the time I
> >> >> would, the lack
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> IPv4 space will prohibit an additional request. I don't
> >> feel it's
> >> >> >> fair be punished because I'm trying to be responsible with
> >> >> what I have.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Seth, get off with the "being punished". Do you have a
> >> copy of the
> >> >> > justification you used to get the space? Update it to
> >> >> reflect reality
> >> >> > and viola, you have everything you need. It probably
> >> will take you
> >> >> > less time than you have already spent on this thread.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Somebody has to stick up for the tiny networks; might as
> >> well be me.
> >> >>
> >> >> ~Seth
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> PPML
> >> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> >> to the ARIN
> >> >> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or
> >> >> manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > PPML
> >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> >> to the ARIN
> >> > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage
> >> > your mailing list subscription at:
> >> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Chris Grundemann
> >> www.chrisgrundemann.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> to the ARIN
> >> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or
> >> manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> Chris Grundemann
More information about the ARIN-PPML