[arin-ppml] The Library Book Approach to IPv4 Scarcity
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Wed Nov 12 15:48:02 EST 2008
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
> transfers, because a business model based on paid transfers is
> not sustainable - there is not enough IPv4 left to satisfy
> the demand for IP addressing.
> 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?
> 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. Spammers are cut from the same cloth. These people
> are scum of the Internet and create no value-add whatsoever.
>> 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).
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
> 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.
>> 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
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML