RE $50 Million NSF windfall??

[Dennis Ferguson]

> @ technical effort to coordinate.  Canada, being only 1/10th the size
> @ of the US and even a smaller fraction of the size of Europe and Asia,
> @ was perhaps the best experience we've had in understanding how IP
> @ address allocation benefits from the economies of scale of
> @ centralization.
> @ 
> 
> Should RIPE and APNIC be pulled back to the U.S. ?

RIPE and APNIC seem to have large enough consituencies to achieve
efficient and skilled operations.  Regions 1/10th the size of the
U.S. do not seem to.
 
> @ I do notice that you've confused `building Internet infrastructure'
> @ with IP address allocation, however, so maybe I can help you clear
> @ this up.  Building Internet infrastructure is something that many
> @ companies and organizations do, even in Canada, and is indeed an activity
> @ of fundamental economic importance, often requiring large investments, which
> @ must be encouraged, stimulated and provided the support necessary to
> @ maximize successes.  Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the
> @ other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all (all the integers
> @ we can use have already been built), their only function is to provide
> @ a service (only one of many required) in support of those organizations
> @ which do build the infrastructure.
> @ 
> 
> Confused "building Internet infrastructure"...?
> above you state...
> 	"Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the
> 	other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all
> 	(all the integers we can use have already been built),"
> This appears to imply that building infrastructure for
> you means building integers and you claim above that
> many companies are building Internet infrastructure...
> "even in Canada"...yet all integers have been built...
> 
> below you state...
> 	"The activity which is important here is building Internet
> 	infrastructure."
> and then you go on to make comments about the total
> cost of constructing a really large Internet and point out
> that "IP address allocation is not a large task"

I warned you that this was difficult to understand, but that the
distinction was important.

> In summary...you seem to be saying
> 	Many companies build Internet Infrastrusture...
> 		and it is an important task...

Yes.

> 	Organizations that alllocate IPs perform a
> 		small simple task and are not part
> 		of building Internet Infrastructure...

No, actually I said that organizations which allocate IP addresses perform
a small, complex task which does not involve building infrastructure, but
which instead is a service that those who do build infrastructure require
to be done well.

> 	All integers have been built (whatever that means)...
> 		therefore no infrastructure needs to be built...

... by those who allocate IP addresses.  The infrastructure will by built
by those they serve, but the infrastructure will not grow quickly and
to a large size if the IP address allocation function is not performed
with skill, and cost effectively.

> 		yet many companies are doing it and it is
> 		important...

Yes.  Except the companies which build infrastructure are not those
which allocate IP addresses.

> And you are claiming I am confused...?

You seem to be.  I hope this has helped.

> @ In other words, the economic benefit to the U.S. of having just one very
> @ skilled IP address allocation registry located on a beach in Tobago will
> @ far exceed that of having 100 address registries in the 100 largest U.S.
> @ cities, none of which are very good since they can't get enough practice.
> @ I think that many government people who understand the bigger picture, as
> @ well as infrastructure builders who need this service performed, know this
> @ very well, which is why many see central allocation under the control of
> @ the infrastructure builders who depend on the function as being optimally
> @ good for the industry.
> @ 
> 
> I am suggesting 10 registries to start not 100...

... to perform a function which experience suggests will yield maximum
benefit to the Internet industry overall if done by just one.  You need
to look at the bigger picture.

> @ > Please do not point to some RFC. Some U.S. Government
> @ > people would not know an RFC from the IRS if it walked
> @ > up and said hello.
> @ 
> @ This is true.  But this is why many U.S. Government people turn to those
> @ who do have experience, and who do understand, to help them find the best
> @ path to follow.  I think this has happened in this case.
> @ 
> 
> Who would those U.S. Government people be...?
> 
> Who are the experienced people they have turned to...?

As you pointed out, many discussions of importance are often not conducted on
mailing lists.

> Also, are you saying that the Canadian Government has
> no interest in being involved in this aspect of the Registry
> Industry ?

I have no idea what the Canadian government is interested in, but if they
are like the U.S. government they will be interested in a solution for
IP address allocation which minimizes the cost to, maximizes the benefit
to, and which is controlled by, those who use the service in the course
of building an ever-larger Internet.  Experience so far has shown that
having one very small, very good IP address allocation registry for a
continent has worked well for this, while an IP address allocation registry
for a region 1/10th this size did not.

> @ P.S. I never did see your answer to this question:
> @ 
> 
> I answered it and I will answer it again...

I think you actually answered a question about someone stealing
something, which I'm pretty sure John didn't ask.  Oh well, never
mind.

Dennis Ferguson