[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