[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Fri Dec 19 21:31:19 EST 2014


Hi Randy,

But 2014-14 would make it impossible to "buy up all of the space and then 
set its own price."
Only a single /16 per year per entity could be received without a needs 
test.
The original /0 IPv4 space was fragmented originally into /8s and then into 
/16s, and then atomized and dispersed through another 20 years of worldwide 
allocations. There is just no way to re-aggregate the space into a single 
operational seller.
Certainly not out of the sight of ARIN policy makers, who have the whip-hand 
here.

On the other hand, 2014-14 would diminish the FUD for the more numerous and 
smaller participants, and would mitigate many problems (like Mr. Ryerse's).

I do agree with you that the reduction in the minimum sizes to /24 has made 
it easier for people to get /24s from the remaining ARIN free pool.  But 
finding /24s on the transfer market is hit-and-miss. I think streamlining 
the sales process for the smallest buyers would work to their favor in terms 
of price and availability, and that streamlining is best achieved by a 
sophisticated and experienced seller with an inventory of IPv4 space which 
they do not need. 2014-14 would allow such an inventory to be filled, but 
limited to one such /16 per year.  If results of such an experiment are 
deemed positive by the community, 2014-14 could remain in place or be 
extended. If the results are perceived to be negative, informed 
policy-makers can change back to a needs-based policy, following the example 
of APNIC.

Regards,
Mike



Regards,
Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen at network1.net>
To: "Steven Ryerse" <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness


>
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP 
> addresses. All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up 
> all of the space, and then set its own price for everyone else. How's that 
> for "fairness" ?? I don't see how you can argue for treating smaller orgs 
> more fairly by proposing to allow large companies to set whatever 
> ridiculous price they want.
>
> I still don't get the needs argument at all. If an org can't show that it 
> needs the addresses, then why do they need the addresses?
>
> I agree that in the past it was difficult for small non-multihomed orgs to 
> get space. But now that the minimum is a /24, it is so ridiculously easy.
>
> -Randy
>
> ----- On Dec 19, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Steven Ryerse 
> SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com wrote:
>
>> I'm not being ignorant I am trying to get to bottom of the discussion.  I 
>> wish
>> ARINs resources were issued by ARIN in a capitalistic manner.  Then as 
>> long as
>> an Org is willing to pay the going rate resources could be acquired 
>> guaranteed
>> as long as there are sellers.  There is no needs testing in that model 
>> just
>> supply and demand and the ability to pay.  How do we change to the 
>> Capitalistic
>> model from what we got now?
>>
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>
>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>             Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
>> Behalf
>> Of Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:23 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>
>> First point here Steven is you have completely ignored and failed to 
>> respond to
>> my first comment regarding why ARIN is the way it is - because it exists 
>> in a
>> capitalistic society - because you have no answer for that.
>>
>> I do not really believe for a second that you really want an honest 
>> debate on
>> this issue.  What you are doing is sitting back and cherry picking weak
>> arguments to respond to, and ignoring strong ones.  So I am not going to 
>> waste
>> much more time with you on this.
>>
>> But I will say that your comment:
>>
>> " If .com domain names were nearing runout, would that really make it OK 
>> to
>> start denying small Orgs .com domain name requests?"
>>
>> is one of the most ignorant I've seen on this list in quite a while.
>>
>> The DNS system exists to make IP addresses that are hard to remember, 
>> replaced
>> by domain names that are easy to remember.  The average English speaking 
>> adult
>> knows about 50,000 English words.  There's over 100 million .com domain 
>> names
>> registered at this point.  We have far and away exceeded the number of 
>> English
>> .com one word domain names that an average person would know.
>>
>> Therefore we have long ago "run out" of .com domain names.  Oh sure, you 
>> can
>> still register new .com domain names that are nonsense like
>> fdgcjghhgeafvrar.com or you can make up elaborate long sentences like
>> thisismynewdomainanemisntitkewel.com and register those names, but 
>> neither of
>> those meets the bar of being an easy to remember name.  They are, in 
>> fact,
>> harder to remember than the IP addresses that they are supposed to make 
>> "easy
>> to remember"
>>
>> There
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 9:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> Thanks for your comments!  Actually the total number of possible .com
>>> permutations is limited too.  IPv4 addresses and .com domain names are 
>>> both
>>> just Internet resources that Internet users need to use the Internet.
>>> Obviously there are less IPv4 addresses than .com combinations, but IPv4 
>>> is
>>> still the only way to access most of the Internet.  While ARIN has 
>>> resources to
>>> allocate - I'm absolutely fine limiting the size of an allocation to 
>>> match the
>>> size of an Org and their network, but I'm not fine with denying an Org 
>>> any
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> Also IPv4 cannot somehow be saved by conservation.  Regardless of any 
>>> policy,
>>> ARIN will run out of IPv4 probably within the next year.  If .com domain 
>>> names
>>> were nearing runout, would that really make it OK to start denying small 
>>> Orgs
>>> .com domain name requests?
>>>
>>> Steven Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>
>>> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                       Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Andrew Sullivan
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:59 AM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:35:41PM +0000, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, 
>>>> then it
>>>> isn’t OK to deny an Org the Minimum  IP allocation.  They are both 
>>>> Internet
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy seems faulty to me.  The number space is finite (and in the 
>>> case of
>>> v4, not very large).  The name space in any given registry is admittedly 
>>> not
>>> infinite, since (1) it's limited to labels 63 octets long from the LDH
>>> repertoire and (2) useful mnemonics are generally shorter than 63 octets 
>>> and
>>> usually a wordlike thing in some natural language.  There are, however, 
>>> lots of
>>> registries (more all the time!
>>> Thanks, ICANN!); and last I checked neither info nor biz was anything 
>>> close to
>>> the size (or utility) of com, even though they've both been around since 
>>> 2001
>>> and have rather similar registration rules.  So, there is an argument in 
>>> favour
>>> of tight rules for allocation of v4 numbers that is not available in the 
>>> name
>>> case.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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. 




More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list