[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Fri Sep 3 05:10:30 EDT 2021
It is my hope that eventually the cost of IPv4 will eventually get so high
that it will finally tip a majority of the world's networks over to the
world of IPv6. Most access providers have it. Most equipment vendors
have it, as well as nearly every operating system on the planet.
My guess is that once we can get holders of more than 50% of the IPv4
space over to using IPv6, the entire marketplace, including the leasing of
IPv4 space will collapse when these networks start dumping their no longer
needed IPv4 space into the market place.
Market makers seem to forget that the price can go down as well as up.
When we get more than 1/2 of the main content of the internet onto IPv6,
things will start going the other way.
The main problem in getting this to happen is that there is a lot of
incumbent networks that refuse to adopt the new standard.
Ecomomic forces will eventually take care of this. When we get to a
majority of networks reachable over IPv6, I can see hosting and access
providers both start charging extra for IPv4. Some will take the bait,
after all if all you are doing is streaming and other consumer things with
your internet connection, why pay more when all those things can be done
with only a cheaper IPv6 only connection. I expect that this will
actually happen in places outside the US first, since they have fewer IPv4
resources to began with. As it is, many providers in these parts of the
world are doing CGnat for lack of address space with their IPv4. Under
these conditions, even with the larger headers, the lack of CGnat overhead
allows IPv6 speeds to beat IPv4 speeds every time.
This is why I have always promoted IPv6 friendly policies at ARIN, because
sometimes that is all that is required to push people to IPv6. We have
rejected an IPv6 requirement in ARIN as a condition of receiving
transferred IPv4 space. However, eventually I think that we will still
get to adopting such a policy. Lets force those who are buying these
addresses to also adopt IPv6 as well for the good of the ENTIRE Internet.
My network, my rules has problems when it is holding back others that you
are networking with. Everyone that can should have IPv6 for the future of
the internet.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
>
>
>> > Who decides this? All those asset purchase agreement wasn’t
>> signed out of
>> > blue.
>>
>> Agreements made among men and women based on erroneous premises
>> are no
>> more relevant that two people agreeing that the sky contains no
>> stars;
>> either they are both blind, they are both fooling only
>> themselves, or one
>> is dishonest, fooling the other, who is blind.
>>
>>
>> And why make you the authority to decide what is asset what is not?
>
> I never claimed to make these decisions. The pioneers who invented and grew
> the network wisely embedded that authority in organizations composed of peers
> who came by their votes meritocratically, and choose by consensus.
>
>>
>> Last time I check those power is with court.
>>
>
> In some places, perhaps. The difference here is the global nature of the
> resources under discussion means that a ruling in one jurisdiction may have
> little to no effect on others. Rest assured that any such court case would
> attract amicus briefs, among other mechanisms, from other relevant parties
> and stakeholders to make sure said court has full understanding of issues at
> play.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Number itself might not constitute asset. However registration
>> in an unique
>> > database surely is.
>> >
>>
>> Said registration comes with responsibilites as well as rights.
>> Consider
>> it more a position of trust to manage the assets ethically.
>> Such a
>> position can be revoked, if that trust is broken.
>>
>>
>> That is up for the court to decide, it is uncharted territory if RIR have
>> such power, I think one day, a court case somewhere in the world will
>> decide
>> as such and things will be more clear.
>
> No, it is reasonably clearly in the hands of the IANA and by extension, RIRs.
>
>
>> I suggest that you should contemplate the film "The Pirates of
>> Silicon
>> Valley" for a bit of historical perspective on these two
>> figures. You may
>> find that you just proved my point.
>>
>>
>> No, I will not, I have my view on those two persons and you title yours—I
>> don’t need some film to firm such view.
>>
>
> That is your loss. Pity too, I had hoped you would be open minded enough to
> consider perspectives that exist somewhere other than between your own ears,
> particularly reasonably accurate historical accounts relevant to a point of
> discussion.
>
>> What makes you assume I am advocating for anything? I was
>> simply refuting
>> your point that capitalism rewards pioneers. Nikola Tesla, and a
>> great
>> many other true pioneers might disagree with you, were they
>> alive and here
>> to do so.
>>
>>
>> Capitalism rewards pioneers, does not means it rewards all pioneers.
>
> It occasionaly rewards some pioneers, and sometimes strips those pioneers of
> everything, instead handing their rewards to the unscrupulous who are willing
> to exploit those pioneers.
>
>>
>>
>> > Capitalism can be flawed except it is the best mankind
>> > have discover so far.
>>
>> Perhaps, perhaps not. You are, however, entitled to your
>> opinion. Be
>> aware that stating your opinion does not constitute fact.
>>
>>
>> I never claim it is fact. But what is your opinion of best form of society?
>> Communism?
>
> You term an economic system as a form of society, but a society has a great
> many more components than just how commerce is transacted.
>
> I am not sure we have defined it yet, but we can. There is a society
> possible, by means of advanced technology applied selflessly, where there is
> abundance for all, crafted not only from mutual respect and cooperation, but
> also with that same respect for nature and her resources. If you need to put
> a name on it, call it Roddenberryism.
>
>
> Notwithstanding all this conjecture, I will remind you that there is only one
> stream from which to drink, yet all need to drink to live. As such, no one
> will be allowed to dam the stream, and claim the water as their own.
>
> There is a simple solution, however, to the issue of number resource
> exhaustion and scarcity, which has robust and proven technology already
> developed to effect it: sunset IPv4, and migrate to IPv6, where this
> scarcity does not exist. Nobody wishes to speak of this, however, because
> capitalism has functioned, in this case, to retard progress.
>
> This is analogous to the situation we find ourselves in as a society: We
> consume the finite resources of this planet at an ever increasing rate in an
> unquenchable thirst for more growth and profit, while destroying
> biodiversity, and making our planet unlivable for the generations who will
> come after us. Solutions for sustainability exist, but like IPv6, they
> eradicate existing profit streams of the entrenched incumbants, and are
> therefore frowned upon from on high, while those on the bottom pay the
> highest price for that hubris.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > <scott at solarnetone.org>于2021年9月3日
>> 周五下午12:45写道：
>> > > There is but one stream from which to drink,
>> which
>> > belongs to
>> > > everyone.
>> > > We simply ensure that the weakest may also
>> drink, by
>> > preventing
>> > > the
>> > > strong from damming the stream, and claiming all
>> the
>> > water to be
>> > > theirs.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Lu Heng wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Taking out the market and middle man, have one
>> central
>> > body
>> > > distribute all
>> > > > resources and reclaim them when not needed.
>> > > >
>> > > > Wasn’t humanity spend entire 20 century with
>> millions
>> > life
>> > > dead to proof it
>> > > > won’t work?
>> > > >
>> > > > <scott at solarnetone.org>于2021年9月3日
>> > 周五下午12:03写道：
>> > > > +1
>> > > >
>> > > > Agreed. The middleman with no
>> infrastructure
>> > business
>> > > model is
>> > > > by
>> > > > it's very nature parasitic.
>> > > >
>> > > > Scott
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Surely people benefiting from IP
>> leasing will
>> > keep
>> > > trying to
>> > > > make it
>> > > > > 'normal', acceptable and part of day
>> by day as
>> > if
>> > > these
>> > > > middleman were
>> > > > > facilitating something for the good of
>> the
>> > internet
>> > > while it
>> > > > is the
>> > > > > opposite.
>> > > > > This practice serves exclusively to
>> the
>> > financial
>> > > benefit of
>> > > > those who lease
>> > > > > (but are not building any Internet
>> > Infrastructure) and
>> > > of
>> > > > course to the
>> > > > > middleman not the lessee.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > How can it be beneficial to lessee
>> that has to
>> > pay
>> > > more they
>> > > > would have to
>> > > > > spend if those very same resources
>> were
>> > recovered by
>> > > the RIR
>> > > > and
>> > > > > re-distributed directly to that same
>> > organization ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It doesn't matter much how the
>> scenario
>> > changed in the
>> > > past
>> > > > and recent
>> > > > > years. There are principles and
>> fairness to be
>> > > observed and
>> > > > they should not
>> > > > > change in order to adjust the interest
>> of
>> > these few
>> > > ones who
>> > > > speculate a
>> > > > > resource that doesn't belong to them
>> and
>> > wasn't
>> > > justified for
>> > > > that propose.
>> > > > > It is just easier the RIR to recover
>> them and
>> > do the
>> > > right
>> > > > thing, for harder
>> > > > > and stressful it can be it is the
>> right thing
>> > to be
>> > > done.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't mean to sound rude to those
>> who
>> > disagree with
>> > > me, but
>> > > > I really hope
>> > > > > RIRs in general revoke as much as
>> possible
>> > addresses
>> > > clearly
>> > > > being used for
>> > > > > leasing where the resource holder only
>> > speculates
>> > > them,
>> > > > doesn't build any
>> > > > > Internet infrastructure and where in
>> many
>> > cases don't
>> > > even
>> > > > exist
>> > > > > connectivity between the current
>> resource
>> > holder and
>> > > the
>> > > > lessee and
>> > > > > re-allocate them to those who truly
>> justify.
>> > This has
>> > > nothing
>> > > > to do with
>> > > > > interfere in the business of that
>> resource
>> > holder.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Often those supporting this misuse of
>> IP
>> > resources try
>> > > to
>> > > > paint a picture
>> > > > > that those resources are
>> organization's
>> > property and
>> > > the RIR
>> > > > should be
>> > > > > unable to do anything about that. Not
>> being a
>> > > irrevocable
>> > > > properly
>> > > > > organizations own explanations and
>> clarity
>> > about how
>> > > they use
>> > > > it according
>> > > > > to the what is in the best interest of
>> all
>> > those who
>> > > developed
>> > > > and agreed
>> > > > > the current rules in place and the
>> > organization who
>> > > has the
>> > > > duty to inspect
>> > > > > that. Regardless the commercial model
>> of an
>> > > organization it
>> > > > must adhere to
>> > > > > the current rules and contract they
>> previously
>> > signed,
>> > > not the
>> > > > other way
>> > > > > round.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Also the understanding that a LIR
>> leases IP
>> > addresses
>> > > is quiet
>> > > > wrong. If
>> > > > > they are build Internet
>> infrastructure,
>> > provide
>> > > connectivity
>> > > > and charge
>> > > > > administrative fees for the addresses
>> they
>> > allocate to
>> > > that
>> > > > customer there
>> > > > > is nothing wrong with it.
>> > > > > I personally can understand the
>> permanent
>> > Transfer of
>> > > > resources and that has
>> > > > > been a more natural and fair movement
>> and why
>> > > community agreed
>> > > > on that on
>> > > > > most RIRs, but despite some beautiful
>> picture
>> > painted
>> > > IP
>> > > > leasing brings no
>> > > > > good to lessee and to the Internet if
>> things
>> > can be
>> > > done in
>> > > > the proper way.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards
>> > > > > Fernando
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 02/09/2021 17:39, Ronald F.
>> Guilmette
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In message
>> > > <058401d7a013$7797d160$66c77420$@iptrading.com>,
>> > > > > "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We tried the method you've espoused
>> below for
>> > thirty
>> > > years and
>> > > > > the result were a huge amount of
>> wasted
>> > address space.
>> > > Once
>> > > > the market
>> > > > > was adopted, many of those addresses
>> found a
>> > useful
>> > > place in
>> > > > the routing
>> > > > > table.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Well, it's sort of a Catch-22. Mike,
>> you're
>> > > absolutely right
>> > > > that once
>> > > > > there was a free market, a lot of
>> stuff came
>> > off the
>> > > shelves
>> > > > and started
>> > > > > to be used productively. But can any
>> of us
>> > say with
>> > > > confidence that once
>> > > > > there was a free market, a lot of this
>> > commodity
>> > > (IPv4) that
>> > > > was sitting
>> > > > > on shelves didn't just stay there
>> -because- of
>> > the
>> > > open and
>> > > > free market...
>> > > > > because the "owners" of those blocks
>> > effectively
>> > > became
>> > > > speculators, just
>> > > > > waiting arond for the scarcity to
>> become more
>> > acute,
>> > > and for
>> > > > the price to
>> > > > > go up?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (I confess that I never in my life
>> took an
>> > economics
>> > > class,
>> > > > but it seems
>> > > > > to me that the entire field is chock
>> full of
>> > > head-scratching
>> > > > conundrums
>> > > > > like this... situation where you are
>> damned if
>> > you do
>> > > and
>> > > > damned if you
>> > > > > don't.)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The free pool era is dying, let's put
>> a fork
>> > in it as
>> > > quickly
>> > > > as
>> > > > > possible We've seen the corruption
>> engendered
>> > by the
>> > > bait of
>> > > > the
>> > > > > free pool in multiple registries now,
>> > including our
>> > > own.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Just curious Mike... Does this opinion
>> on your
>> > part
>> > > extend
>> > > > also to IPv6?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Your old-fashioned method of address
>> > distribution
>> > > would get
>> > > > some
>> > > > > addresses to those in need, I will
>> concede
>> > that.
>> > > However, so
>> > > > will
>> > > > > leasing addresses, with that
>> demonstration of
>> > need
>> > > being the
>> > > > lease
>> > > > > payment. Will you concede that those
>> who pay
>> > to lease
>> > > > addresses need
>> > > > > them?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Even if nobody else does, I certainly
>> will.
>> > But of
>> > > course
>> > > > that's not the
>> > > > > only issue.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The current Cloud Innovation v.
>> AFRINIC thing
>> > is in
>> > > some ways
>> > > > confusing as
>> > > > > hell because it has brought to a head
>> > -multiple-
>> > > long-standing
>> > > > issues that
>> > > > > have then gotten all tangled up with
>> one
>> > another,
>> > > making it
>> > > > difficult for
>> > > > > anybody to tease apart the various
>> separate
>> > issues.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > One of these is what might be called
>> "equity",
>> > i.e.
>> > > the social
>> > > > desire to
>> > > > > help Africa, a continent and a people
>> who have
>> > been on
>> > > the
>> > > > receiving end
>> > > > > of so much exploitation and malevolent
>> evil,
>> > over the
>> > > > centuries, at the
>> > > > > hands of others.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Another issue is the right and proper
>> role of
>> > RIRs.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Last but not leas (and perhaps the
>> most
>> > troubling and
>> > > most
>> > > > difficult to
>> > > > > crack open in a way that does not
>> merely
>> > reveal our
>> > > individual
>> > > > biases) is
>> > > > > the question of the proper role of
>> what I will
>> > just
>> > > call
>> > > > "speculators"
>> > > > > within any free market.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Contrary to what some might say, I
>> think that
>> > when it
>> > > comes to
>> > > > IPv4 addresse
>> > > > > s
>> > > > > at least, it most certainly -is-
>> possible to
>> > > distinguish
>> > > > "speculators" from
>> > > > > actual and legitimate end users and/or
>> > legitimate
>> > > brokers &
>> > > > middlemen such
>> > > > > as yourself. As I understand it, the
>> current
>> > system
>> > > requires
>> > > > people to
>> > > > > document their equipment purchases.
>> No
>> > equipment
>> > > purchases?
>> > > > You're almost
>> > > > > certainly just a speculator.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So then the question becomes
>> two-fold: (1) Do
>> > we want
>> > > > speculators in this
>> > > > > marketplace? and (2) Is there any
>> actually
>> > feasible
>> > > way to
>> > > > keep them out
>> > > > > of the "free" market even if the
>> collective
>> > "we"
>> > > firmly
>> > > > decided that we
>> > > > > wanted to do so?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I personally don't have answers to any
>> of
>> > these
>> > > questions. I
>> > > > would only
>> > > > > offer up the observation that I am
>> aware of at
>> > least a
>> > > few
>> > > > speculators at
>> > > > > this moment in time, and it would be
>> an
>> > understatement
>> > > for me
>> > > > to say that
>> > > > > their actions seem to me to be both
>> glaringly
>> > untoward
>> > > and
>> > > > also unhelpful.
>> > > > > But if you ask me IN GENERAL whether
>> > "speculators" are
>> > > a
>> > > > necessary and even
>> > > > > useful component of a free market, I
>> cannot
>> > say they
>> > > are not.
>> > > > And it seems
>> > > > > I may not be alone in leaving open
>> this
>> > possibility:
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/09/the-theranos-implos
>> i
>> > o
>> > > n-
>> > > > a
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> nd-robert-shiller-on-short-selling-and-complete-markets/
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 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.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> _______________________________________________
>> > > > 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.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > --
>> > > > Kind regards.
>> > > > Lu
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > --
>> > > Kind regards.
>> > > Lu
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Kind regards.
>> > Lu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Kind regards.
>> Lu
>>
>>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list