Hi Eliot,
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019, Eliot Lear wrote:
Scott
I know this is OT, but…
On 28 Oct 2019, at 11:29, scott <[email protected]> wrote:
Postel is presently rolling in his grave at such a rate that if we
attach magnets to him and place inductors around him, we could
produce the 1.21 gigawatts necessary to go back in time and prevent
the monitization of IP addresses in the first place.
Because address markets didn’t exist, it is speculative to comment about
what Jon would have thought, and it is a bit cheeky to invoke his name in
this way.
Speculative? Sure. Should have prefaced with an IMHO. Cheeky? Yep,
guilty as charged. Shakes people out of their normal perspective,
sometimes, which is why I use that cheekiness;)
My point is that what we have now, and what has been proposed about
leasing of address space, is far from the notebook he used to keep address
allocations sorted in. How long will it be before the telecomization of
v4 address space becomes a serious barrier to entry for new players? It
already has, IMHO. The "gold rush" caused by open trading of address
space, and the artificial scarcity that allows this, while profitable to a
few, seem to me to be kind of a retrograde to progress. Those opposed to
wider v6 deployment, from my observation, seem to be those with a
financial interest in keeping said artificial scarcity, or your random
BOFH on a power trip.
Meanwhile, there are 3 billion or so people without connectivity at all,
and hundreds of millions of others with insufficient access to perform
modern tasks. This is often, in the US, in places where those making money
off v4 have indicated sufficient service to the relevant regulatory
agency. Said regulatory agency does no independent due diligence, and
just repeats the erroneous data. Sure, more is required to connect the
rest of the world than sufficient address space, but that is a rather
critical component, IMHO. Does this mean sunsetting v4? Not today, not
tomorrow. Maybe never... it may continue as a historical museum type
network in the world, but eventually, by means either de jure or de facto,
functional sunsetting will occur out of needs of the market. As a
community, I think we need to be thinking about that as occuring in a
reasonable time frame, no matter what we think that time frame will be.
With v6 well deployed, the address shortage problems go away.
I remember connecting an island of 10000 people once. 3 IPv4 addresses
were available for the network. Ever try to build a WISP and telecenters
to introduce a marginalized populace to the Internet, and have to use NAT
all over the place to do it? Let me tell you, it's not pretty. Now
consider what it does to the education into Internet when you can't show
them a properly numbered network in operation, but instead the fat kludge
that NAT always has been and still is.
I can only tell you that my experience was that Jon was a
pragmatist and lived with the world as it was, as all good scientists do.
Sure, but as people of knowledge, we cannot afford to forget our ability,
even responsibility, to shape the world. As Whitman said, "that the
powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."
As a young idealistic brat, I was more of an architectural purist, and so
I went head to head with him on the allocation of 10/8, and his response
was classic: write an RFC that explains the problems, to advance the state
of the art.
Well, yeah, but these days, publishing an RFC is a significantly more
involved endeavor, as you know.
I dearly wish he could have lived to work on these issues with
us.
Me too.
Scott
Eliot
Ps: I have no position on the proposed policy.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
