[arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

The right answer is a return to an enviroment where there is no address 
shortage.  Of course that spells IPv6.

Getting back to the the simple record keeping role is already there in 
IPv6 when there is no shortage of addresseses.  The only issue is getting 
to a tipping point where v6 is used more than v4.  Without a shortage, we 
can get back to the end to end way of life, and not have to deal with 
CIDR, NAT or any other address conservation method.  It also brings RIR's 
back to their original record keeping role, without having to police the 
number of addresses that a member needs.

I would like to get back to end to end, even for IOT devices.  I would 
like to directly address them as well, rather than relaying via the 
maker's server.  I would like some of those things like doorbell cameras, 
but I do not want to be dependent on other peoples servers, or orphaned 
devices caused when the servers are removed. That way, any downtime is 
100% under my control. V6 gets us back to the way of the internet in the 
early days when every host had a public address.  Of course getting 
everyone else who has not adopted it has always been the challenge. I 
doubt there is any magic bullet to IPv6 adoption, but clearly IPv4 cannot 
be the long term answer, with less than 1 address per living person 
available.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

> In message <alpine.LRH.2.21.2001031657540.742 at bigone.uneedus.com>,
> hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>
>> There are those that wanted to become landlords of IPv4.  I think this
>> kinda shoots down those hopes.
>
> It would appear so.
>
> To be frank however, I'm not fully persuaded that the term "landlord"
> should be so cavalierly tossed around as an epithet with distinctly
> negative connotations.  After all, landlords are job creators!  Just
> ask our Job Creator in Chief!
>
> Consideration should also be given to the possibility that Internet
> landlords could be a good thing.  Imagine if you will that in some
> cases, counties and municipalities might snatch up blocks of IP
> addresses and then use them to provide the Internet equivalent of
> Section 8 housing for poor folks who would otherwise be obliged to
> go without.
>
> But seriously folks, the truth is that I myself have never resolved my
> own internal debate between top-down socialism and unfettered laissez
> faire capitalism.  Thus, one day I'll be out in the streets defending
> the absolute right of Walmart to chase homeless people off their private
> property, and the next day I'll be out in the streets protesting the
> stranglehold that the 1% has on the media.
>
> In theory, the entire RIR system could simply cease to exist, except for
> their record keeping role, and all of the remaining IPs could be sold off
> to the highest bidders.  This would result in the laissez faire capitalism
> end game for IP addresses, and yes, there would inevitably be robber
> baron landlords and perhaps even an eventual very destructive attempt on
> someone's part to "corner the market".  Or we can just keep things as they
> are now, which is a kind of benevolent socialism where we make at least
> some effort, pretentious or otherwise, to give "to each according to his
> needs."
>
> I don't know the right answer, and to be frank, I worry a lot about
> anybody who thinks that they do.  The present system has worked for
> quite a long time, but not without what I see as many notable failures,
> the most grotesque of which having only been recently uncovered by myself
> in a different region.
>
> One short anecdote may help to illustrate the fundamentally insoluable
> economics conundrum.
>
> Recently, while talking via skype to my new friend Jan in South Africa,
> he noted to me that the government there is now being forced... by dire
> financial circumstances... to seriously consider privatizing some or all
> of Eskom, the country's government-owned and massively money-losing
> electric utility.  (Note also that Eskom's huge financial troubles have
> been linked to allegations of corruption.)
>
> I laughed when Jan told me this, and informed him that here in my home
> state of California, our governor has publicly speculated about going
> in the exact opposite direction... perhaps having the state take over
> the troubled and embattled Pacific Gas & Electric Company... PG&E...
> in the wake of its apparent failures to perform routine maintenance...
> generally considered to be the root cause of numerous massive wildfires...
> thereby hopefully insuring that in future, paying regular dividends to
> shareholders will no longer take precedence over badly needed maintenance
> expenditures.
>
> So which is better?  Socialist state control or laissez faire capitalism?
> I think it's funamentally an insoluable debate, an economic Catch-22 in
> which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, and that at base
> anyone vigorously arguing in favor of one or the other is really arguing
> only in favor of rearranging the pieces on the board, without materially
> changing the game, and is really just arguing in favor of exchanging one
> set of crooks for a different one... no offense to any present company
> intended.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>