[arin-ppml] CGN multiplier was: RE: Input on an article by Geoff Huston (potentially/myopically off-topic addendum)

[Tom Vest]

On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Chris Engel wrote:

>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> Actually I agree entirely -- and that's precisely why I have been tossing this
>> same argument up for 4-5 years now. Diversity is a great but ultimately fragile
>> thing in systems -- like the Internet as well as monetary/banking sector --
> 
>> that are absolutely critical to the everyday affairs of lots of non-industry
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Where would you draw the line?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> TV
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Simply put, I wouldn't.  Nature does that for us. It's called Natural Selection. It can be a bit messy in the short term but in the long term it's quite effective. Things that don't work well for their environment, if left to their own ends,  simply don't last and are replaced by things that do. (IMO) Excessive attempts to interfere with that process and impose some top down plan more often cause deeper seated systemic problems then any benefits they might provide.
> 
> Using the most recent financial crisis as example, the greatest failure there (IMO) was the government(s) stepping in to "soften the blow" and provide some sort of safety net. (As an aside, my understanding is that no small amount of the problem itself can be attributed to government efforts to provide loans to people who weren't really qualified for them in the first place..... i.e government interference was a strong contributory factor in causing the problem in the first place) Yes that provides some short term relief to the many who would have been adversely effected....but it also almost guarantees that same sort of greedy, short-sighted and irresponsible thinking that led to this crisis will be repeated again in the near future....perhaps not in the same exact way, if regulations prevent it but it will find a way to express itself. As a banking executive, why wouldn't you engage in risky but profitable gambles if you knew the government would step in to save you if things fell through?

Initially you seem to be implying that foolish gamblers shouldn't be bailed out. But here you can only be suggesting that crooked and/or stupid gambling hall operators should also be at liberty to swindle as many people as they can, and to cover up their criminality any means at their disposal for as long as they can, until finally everyone else wises up somehow. And since we're talking about "the Internet" and "the banking system," we should clarify that your analogy to gambling implies that this absolute liberty should apply even when the "gambling hall" in question covers the Earth and *must* be traversed by everyone numerous times every day, as an unavoidable prerequisite to engaging in all but the most trivial of exchanges with others, for as long as the live.

It's an interesting view. Suffice it to say that we disagree. 

> Which leads us back to the topic at hand.  If IPv6 really is such a clearly superior solution, ultimately we'll get there.

I'll just assume here that you skipped over, or forgot, or failed to understand the message that you're replying to, specifically the paragraph that starts with "Many banks and financial industry operators used to enjoy that same freedom." 

FWIW, I personally think that a  superior address distribution arrangement would provide a free pony along with each new number resource delegation. However, I can also imagine and rank order a number of intermediate arrangements that fall somewhere between my own personal favorite and the opposite (which for me would be no pony + no usable IP addresses). I find that imaginative exercises of this kind can come in quite handy in situations where I cannot unilaterally dictate both my own terms, and their broader consequences, on the external world.    

>  If NOT and CGN or some other solution proves perfectly viable....then they will persist. Things may get a bit bumpy for awhile....but ultimately they'll sort themselves out and we'll end up with solutions that work well for their environment. Bottom line, people are, on average, better judges of their own situations then they are of others. I believe that to be an axiom....which is why I shouldn't be trying to tell you what you should run on your networks...and you shouldn't be trying to tell me what to run on mine.
> 
> If you ask me to predict what will happen....I'll freely admit that I haven't a clue. I suspect for the next decade or so, we are likely to have a pretty heterogeneous internet....with individual players running different things on their networks and having to figure out mechanisms to transition traffic coming across their boundaries. I'm ok with that. It'll be messy, but there really is no other way to figure out what REALLY is going to work and what won't without a variety of solutions undergoing a trial by fire. If they work decently, they'll last...if not, they won't. YMMV.



Caught myself again! 
(see prev. message to Michel if this is unclear).

Thanks very much for the detailed response.

Regards, 

TV

[[psst... If I were you, I would avoid making any more predictions like the above in any public forum. I'never heard anyone holding any significant position of authority, public or private, in the monetary/banking sector suggesting anything even vaguely like 'the current recession could possibly end in another decade or so, if only people would be patient and allow us to sort things out.' No matter how reassuring that vision might be to you, I don't think that it would do much to inspire greater confidence, or patience, in a broader context... ]]