[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
Mike Winters
mwinters at edwardrose.com
Tue Dec 23 17:15:28 EST 2014
This whole discussion is ridiculous.
Why are you arguing about a fix and what needs to be changed when you have not clearly defined the problem let alone gotten any consensus that there is a problem that needs fixing? All I have seen are vague claims and/or statements. Your premise seems to be that anyone that wants something should be able to get it no questions asked. To me, that is like saying that we should allow children to drive vehicles (maybe limit them to a compact car). After all, the legal driving age is just an arbitrary number defined by a community.
I think if you are serious about your cause, you need to go back to the beginning and clearly and concisely state what specifically the perceived problem is, why it is a problem, and why needs testing should be eliminated. There are many intelligent people on this list and the better they understand what you think is broken, the more likely the community is to come up with a solution that works for everyone.
Mike Winters
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:23 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
I find your continuing unprofessional tone towards me insulting and I would appreciate it if you would cease using it! I didn't realize that this Community forum is only for folks who think exactly the same as you or the same as the vocal majority. I find very little dissent here in this Community and it is from dissent that improvements are made. Over the years I've seen an occasional dissenting opinion from an Org (usually small )and they immediately get shot down and I never see comments from them again so I assume they decide it isn't worth their time to continue commenting. As you have noticed I have chosen to not go away and will continue participating and commenting as I'm told this community is the only place to effect policy change for ARIN allocations.
As for your argument below. To say that the experience in RIPE has no bearing here is ridiculous. They are not identical but they are similar. Certainly their experience is worth studying. RIPE seems to be handling the challenge of serving many disparate countries from all sides of the ideological spectrum with their relaxed needs testing per ripe-604 reasonably well. To dismiss their real world experiment in relaxed needs testing and what we can learn from it in this region out of hand is dismissing the opportunity to improve ARINs policies would not be good stewardship. My opinion.
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: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:27 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
Didn't your mommy ever teach you that just because Europe does something doesn't mean you need to do it also?
You cannot have it both ways. ARIN exists as a regulatory body. If it's usefulness as a regulatory body is over then call for it's dissolution. Otherwise, it's going to do what it's supposed to do which is to prevent the IP number space from becoming hopelessly fragmented and router slots from ballooning.
Europe can get away with ripe-604 precisely because a) it has no Legacy
IPv4 and b) a lot of it has switched over to IPv6 already. Plus there is a lot more regulation of NETWORKS in Europe. Are you forgetting RIPE assigns IP addressing to Russia? Are you going to argue that's now a free democracy with an open market now? That just happens to have had the same dictat...I mean "president" for the last generation? Please, stop before you embarrass yourself.
I would support a call for no needs testing on IPv6 allocations. Of course once obtained then it would be the end users problem to get their upstream to route it. But if more end users obtained IPv6 then it would increase the push on the retail networks (Frontier, RoadRunner, SBC
CenturyLink) to have their support folks at least learn about what it is!!!
But for IPv4? I see no reason to turn it into a free for all.
Ted
On 12/21/2014 11:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> When the government meddles and plays favorites then capitalism stops
> working. At the low end of allocation policy it needs to be
> capitalistic and all we need is the equivalent of the Anti-Trust laws
> in policy to keep the big guys in check. 2014-14 moves in this
> direction. We certainly don't need Anti-Trust equivalent policies on
> the low end of allocations.
>
> Some folks here respond to me as if I'm a heretic and my input is
> radical and if implemented the world would somehow end. I disagree.
> I have recently been advocating removing needs test just from the ARIN
> Minimum block size allocation and my proposed 2014-18 would have done
> that. A proposal to do a whole lot more than I have proposed - not
> only has been proposed in the RIPE region - but tweaked, improved, and
> passed - as ripe-604. Are the folks who proposed and voted to pass
> ripe-604 heretics too? I think not. I think they realized that needs
> testing couldn't save IPv4 and wanted to level the playing field so
> they passed ripe-604. The world has not ended in Europe because of it.
>
> I think we need an ARIN equivalent of ripe-604 but I figured that I
> would start at the low end where I think small Orgs would benefit just
> trying to remove the needs testing for Orgs who just need the minimum
> and don't need a minimum block more than once per year. This would be
> a pretty small change to current policy and if advocating for that
> makes me a heretic then so be it! My two cents.
>
> 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: Ted Mittelstaedt
> [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:09 AM To:
> Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet
> Fairness
>
>
> Your not talking about a Capitalistic model your talking about a
> Laissez-faire model. While this might make some Libertarians have wet
> dreams it is a recipe for anarchy which is why no economy on Earth
> operates this way.
>
> What is generally understood about Capitalism today is that the
> catch-22 of Capitalism is that if you have a market that is completely
> controlled by the government, that is the opposite of Capitalism - but
> if you have a market that has zero government controls it immediately
> devolves into a set of monopolies which are also the opposite of
> Capitalism.
>
> In short, the cost of real economic freedom is constant government
> tinkering.
>
> I realize it's difficult to understand for a lot of people. The Tea
> Party in the United States is filled with people who don't understand
> it.
>
> ARIN resource allocations are as close to Capitalism today as we are
> going to get. Once the transfer market was approved, that ended the
> last vestige of authoritarian control by ARIN.
>
> The needs testing is far less intrusive than government controls on
> automobiles, yet nobody would argue today the US does not have
> competition in the automobile market.
>
> Ted
>
> On 12/19/2014 3:59 PM, Steven Ryerse 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list