[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Sep 13 13:58:08 EDT 2021


This ignores some of the real consumer-afflicting issues in the situation and the key point I was trying to make…

1. The ATSC mandate was one of the most successful in USG History.

	+	Stations all started deploying ATSC transmitters well before the first deadline.
	+	Virtually every station had ATSC on the air before the second deadline.

2.	NTIA completely botched the coupon process in a variety of ways, not the least of which was failing to recognize
	that a coupon with only a date on it should expire after midnight on that date in the westernmost applicable timezone,
	not 5 PM eastern time on that date. (yes, I literally watched dozens of disappointed customers at best buy at 2:01 PM
	in California complaining about this as the clerks struggled to figure out why the coupon system was rejecting them).

3.	We would all have been better off if the coupon program had subsidized purchase of LCD/LED screens instead
	of set top boxes. The set top box was a bastardized hack that should never have seen the light of day. It was
	a great opportunity to get rid of lots of electricity-wasting CRTs.

Owen


> On Sep 13, 2021, at 10:08 , hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> 
> The true problem with the digital TV problem was twofold:
> 
> 1) The FCC should have mandated DTV tuners PRIOR to the first DTV stations going on the air.  This mistake was similar to the FCC waiting on the UHF tuner mandate until a lot of UHF licenses were already issued and were operating.
> 
> 2) The Coupon program should have started right after the first DTV stations were put on the air.  That would allow Digital sooner, and they would not have had to extend the deadline because most of the OTA viewers would have already been viewing digital prior to the Analog shutoff, either with one of the boxes, or a new tv with a digital tuner.
> 
> And even that did not last, as now there is ATSC3 in many markets, and none of this gear will pick up the broadcasts, leading to another generation of hardware replacement.
> 
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
> 
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 12, 2021, at 10:04 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am fine with right-sizing allocations.  An AT&T size network should be able to receive a larger allocation based on the size of their network versus our organization which should only receive a smaller allocation based on the size of our network.  This would work for IPv4 & Ipv6 and IPv8 if someone invents it.
>>> 
>>> The costs involved for an organization of adding Internet services will dictate the time of an IP energy shift.  The costs of IPv4 will play a part of it especially as the cost goes up a lot, but other real costs also factor in and those would be combined with high costs of IPv4 addresses to finally encourage an IP energy shift.
>>> 
>>> The other thing that could cause a shift to another IP energy sooner would be interference by say, the US Government, requiring in law a shift away from IPv4 - similar to what they did with HD TV signals.  I prefer to let the market decide when.  ?
>> 
>> You should look at that HDTV thing again before making that claim…
>> 
>> The FCC actually extended the deadline several times at the request of consumer advocates and NTIA as they completely botched the set top box voucher program repeatedly.
>> 
>> The end result at a certain point was that the broadcasters rejected the last extension and basically said “You can extend the deadline all you want, but we’re turning off the transmitters now.”
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> 
>>> Steven Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 
>>> sryerse at eclipse-networks.com | C: 770.656.1460
>>> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 3:22 AM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>; Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>; arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> So we have Ipv4 which is the energy currently running most of our internet.  IPv4 has a known total of IP addresses.  The reserves of unused IPv4 are spread around the planet in an inefficient and uneven manner.  Every day more and more IPv4 addresses are put to work running services on the Internet which is slowly making them more scarce.  As the price rises over time per IPv4 address on the open market, a lot of this inefficient and uneven spread of IPv4 addresses will even out somewhat via the open market.  This will keep the price reasonably low for awhile ($75 Per tank full) but as these IPv4 addresses become more scarce the price will slowly climb until the day comes where they become very expensive by todays standards ($500 per tank full) and at some point ($1000 per tank full or more) and the organizations wanting to add more services to the Internet will look for a cheaper alternative.
>>> 
>>> The significant difference is that IPv4 is a lot more recyclable than oil.
>>> 
>>> It happens to be possible to create oil derivatives from other energy sources.
>>> 
>>>> So it is likely that we may never actually run out of IPv4 addresses (especially because of the uneven spread of them).
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Frequently what I read in this forum from some members makes me feel like I am back in high school being told we will run out of IPv4 (oil) very soon.  As we approached "Exhaustion" there was a steady drumbeat of various members wanting to update policies to somehow "save" IPv4 from running out. Some policies were changed to try and slow the run out but we still reached the point of "Exhaustion" (end of the 1990's) and its now 2021 and guess what - we haven't run out of IPv4.  This was easily predictable and some members shared exactly this perspective in this forum and were largely ignored for a long time.  Now the free market has taken over like it ALWAYS does and the reserves of IPv4 that were always there - have been slowly coming to market in one way or another as the scarcity of IPv4 is slowly increasing. This will continue and the price of IPv4 (oil) will slowly rise.  I suspect just like the oil predictions in the 70's, IPv4 may still have a long way to go before!
> it is replaced with a new IP energy (2030's?, 2040's?, 2050's? or possibly later?).
>>> 
>>> Let us not gloss over the wasted costs associated with this unnecessary and interminably long period.
>>> 
>>>> The other possibility of new Internet energy happening sooner is a killer Internet app that eats up IPv4 addresses so fast that the cost per address rises much faster than it is doing now.  VisiCalc and then Word Perfect were the killer apps that cemented PC usage throughout corporate America, Microsoft Exchange was the Killer app that cemented Microsoft Windows Server as the de facto server standard for corporate America, and so on.
>>> 
>>> Those killer apps are stillborn on the drawing board due to address scarcity. Any that survive do so without addressing dependencies.
>>> 
>>> As you probably recall, the internet used to be a whole lot more p2p than it is now. Now we have all sorts of centralized applications and services that have significantly displaced that. To what extent has address scarcity played a role is another question.
>>> 
>>> Precisely where IPv6 is strongest, mobile, is where p2p is least applicable.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This is why I have always advocated for furthering the Internet by making it reasonably easy and inexpensive for organizations to get IPv4 resources, especially small organizations.  My policy proposal several years ago to allow any organization in the ARIN region to easily get a /24 was shot down - or at least not supported by the members of this community and forum.  For those that think we should have switched to IPv6 (new energy) by now, "saving" the Internet from "Exhaustion" has actually had the opposite effect of delaying the day that IPv6 might take over as the new Internet energy. So not supporting my policy proposal to make /24 easy to get (we should still do it) as well as not supporting other members that promoted reasonable easier access to IPv4 resources have had the effect of delaying the day IPv6 might take over as the Internet energy.  Should we really have a limit on the size of an IPv4 block that ARIN can assign if the need can be demonstrated?
>>> 
>>> You cant have it both ways if you want RiR's to implement any form of rationing and preferential assignment. Which I actually do, on record with policy proposals.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm certainly against fraud of any kind, including in our community and region, but reasonable policies on leasing IP address space that are aligned with the free market make sense.  Again, I am for any proposal that furthers the Internet knowing the eventual scarcity in IPv4 will cause us all to switch to the next IP energy - whenever it happens and whatever it turns out to be.  (I think we should add that original phrase back into the ARIN Mission Statement even now.)  Our organization will be ready for the new Internet energy and we will embrace it as it comes.  All things considered, Excel was better than Lotus 123 which was better than VisiCalc and so on.
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder what predictions they are teaching our children in high
>>>> school these days?  My twenty-five cents.  ?
>>>> 
>>>> Steven Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 
>>>> sryerse at eclipse-networks.com | C: 770.656.1460
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Ronald F.
>>>> Guilmette
>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 12:01 AM
>>>> To: arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And
>>>> The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
>>>> 
>>>> In message
>>>> <391242690.83333.1631416835397.JavaMail.zimbra at cameron.net>,
>>>> Paul E McNary <pmcnary at cameron.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> We are out of ipv4 IP's.
>>>> Not really.  It's just that the ones that we have are very poorly distributed and also very poorly utilized.
>>>> 
>>>> It is technically possible to host 100,000+ web sites on a single IPv4 address.
>>>> Is is also technically possible to provide email service for 100,000+ domains on a single IPv4 address.  Is anybody doing that?  No.  Because the incentives to do so just aren't there... yet.
>>>> 
>>>> If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to the U.S. DoD which just re-routed 175 million of their 221,971,968 IPv4 addresses, just to use them as one colossal and record-shattering honeypot.
>>>> 
>>>> If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to Comcast and ask them why they haven't moved to IPv6 and then returned their 79,419,720 IPv4 addresses to the free pool to help everyone out and relieve this artificial "scarcity" for the benefit of everyone.
>>>> 
>>>> If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to AT&T and T-Mobile and Verizon about the huge piles of IPv4 that each is sitting on.  Or better yet, talk to the Ford Motor Company, and The Prudential Insurance Comapny, the U.S. Postal Service, and to Apple, none of whom is a service provider, and all of whom are individually sitting on an entire /8 or more (i.e.
>>>>> = 16,777,728 addresses each).
>>>> Then maybe we could ask if Amazon really needs 23.3 million, if IBM really needs a whole 17.5 million, if Google really needs 13.1 million, if Eli Lilly really needs 11.5 million, and if Merck really needs 7.2 million, and if Bank of America really needs 6.2 million.
>>>> 
>>>> We're dying of thirst in the middle of Lake Superior.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list