> On Sep 13, 2021, at 10:21 , [email protected] wrote: > > Here in Central Florida, electric cars effectively run on coal, the primary > local source at night of the main power provider.
Hopefully that will change over time. Heck, hooking a wind turbine up to your governor could power the state. > However, I still see electric cars as a good move for certain uses, including > short trips and things like the Post office. > > In the case of the Post Office, they have to be spending an insane amount of > money on brakes, considering how many stops a postal vehicle makes in a day. > With Regen Braking, and all the vehicles parked at the same time at night, > this use case is got to be the best use for all electric vehicles. The cost > of the brake repairs alone has got to put a big dent in their current budget > for postal vehicle operation. Yep. > At the opposite end, long distance trucking is likely to be the LAST to > change, because the quick stop for fuel versus having to change out the > tractor every couple of hundred miles for a recharge makes that use one of > the worst uses for electric vehicles. Well, likely what will happen there is that there will be battery change stations or eventually highways with catenary wires. Owen > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > On Sun, 12 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote: > >> >> >>> On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:10 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the IP history lesson as I'm sure a lot of folks in this forum >>> haven't heard of that info. >>> >>> Unfortunately a lot of politics has gone into the fossil fuel debates which >>> muddies the subject up a lot and to some extent that goes on in the IP >>> world too. Humans are political creatures. Being told that we would run >>> out of oil in the 1990's twenty years earlier, and then seeing that is >>> still not happening in 2021, makes me skeptical of fossil fuel/climate >>> change claims now. So far none of the drastic predictions have actually >>> occurred, but of course only time will tell. >> >> This is of course if you completely discount the changes in ocean >> temperatures, ocean acidification to date, increasingly severe storm seasons >> planet-wide, and other weather changes that have been observed and linked to >> the growing number of successive record-breaking climate years. >> >>> While if you are standing behind an electric car, we all would agree that >>> it is good that we don't have to breath the exhaust from the tail pipe. >>> However, that electricity is being generated in a power plant somewhere, >>> and there is a much larger "tail pipe" with a whole lot of exhaust spewing >>> out into the air and the environment. I learned in high school chemistry >>> class that E=MC squared, which means that with electric cars we are just >>> shifting the pollution elsewhere, but it seems to make us feel good when we >>> can't see the pollution the electric car is causing. The closest we've >>> come to the "free lunch" of no pollution is nuclear - but of course you >>> have to deal with the waste and the nuclear plants themselves when they >>> finally get shut down. At least most folks agree that clean air and clean >>> water is desirable but after that, as I said it gets muddy. >> >> It turns out that per mile driven, the tail pipe of the power plant(s) >> collectively is less than the individual cars. Further, not all electric >> plants are pollution producing and the ratio is ever tipping away from them. >> Most pollution producing plants in the US today are natural gas fired, with >> an ever decreasing minority burning coal. Coal is about the worst polluter >> we have in electricity today, followed by nature gas. On the other side of >> the spectrum, we have an ever increasing amount of solar (zero pollution), >> wind (zero pollution), nuclear (very small quantities of pollution over long >> periods of time, but the pollution they do produce is extremely hazardous >> for many years), hydro-electric (zero pollution, but some environmental >> impact), and other promising but as yet unproven technology (e.g. ocean >> surge action). >> >>> NAT was one way that was invented to extend IPv4 much the same way as the >>> petroleum-equivalents you mention extend the life of Oil use. In 1994 I >>> used to use valid IP addresses on all PCs in an organization and of course >>> no firewall. There are other ways invented to use less IPv4 as you know. >> >> Not so much… NAT comes with a bunch of nasty tradeoffs and disabilities to >> the idea of a peer to peer network. The petroleum alternatives (not so much >> equivalents, but I suppose functionally so) are, in most cases, actually >> superior to their petroleum counterparts, but also mostly cost more for the >> time being. >> >> I can’t say I run without a firewall, though I do harden hosts individually >> as well where possible. Unfortunately, a lot of embedded systems have no >> consideration of security whatsoever. (amplifiers, allegedly smart TVs, >> Lighting gateways, etc.). >> >>> As I said, IPv6 is the leading candidate to become the new Internet energy, >>> but a breakthrough as odd as Imaginary Numbers was in the mathematics >>> world, might still be possible with IPv4. The clock is ticking on that >>> possibility though. if I live long enough, it will be interesting to watch >>> what actually occurs and when. Until then, we are the using our IPv4 >>> resources as judiciously as we can to avoid having to buy more at >>> escalating prices. We do also have IPv6 resources just in case. ? >> >> Sure… If such a thing occurs, I would welcome it, but given 25+ years of >> people trying really hard to crack that egg without success, I won’t be >> holding my breath. >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> >>> Steven Ryerse >>> President >>> >>> [email protected] | C: 770.656.1460 >>> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 1:09 PM >>> To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Ronald F. Guilmette <[email protected]>; arin-ppml >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The >>> Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System) >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 11, 2021, at 23:23 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> In the 1970's when I was going to high school they told us we would run >>>> out of oil by the end of the 1990's. Maybe that was possible then - based >>>> on the then known oil reserves - if no more reserves were found. Its 2021 >>>> now and we know we didn't run out of oil in the 90's, and in fact have >>>> found huge amounts of new oil reserves around the world - that if used >>>> wisely will last for a long time. >>> >>> Indeed… And due to existing uses, likely will outlast the habitability of >>> the planet by mankind if we don’t change our uses. >>> >>>> Now I assume there is still a limit on how much oil mankind can find on >>>> this earth and we could eventually run out depending on how fast we use >>>> whatever exists. However, it is likely that we will never actually run >>>> out of oil, because if it truly becomes scarce then the price will go up. >>>> As time goes on and as oil becomes more and more scarce, the price will >>>> keep going up and up - until eventually the price will become so high and >>>> prohibitive that mankind will turn to other cheaper sources of energy >>>> because of the super high price that oil will cost then. >>> >>> A big part of the reason we haven’t run out yet and aren’t ripping through >>> what we know exists is that we’ve developed the technology to synthesize >>> petroleum-equivalent products from biomass. (e.g. biodiesel, synthetic >>> motor oils, PLA, etc.) >>> >>>> I'm not exactly sure what the price has to rise to before mankind switches >>>> to other forms of energy. I paid $75 to fill up my pickup truck today. >>>> If it cost $200 to fill your car/truck or $500 or $1000 or more - would >>>> that make most of us switch to something else? $200 maybe or maybe not - >>>> $500 or $1000 or more - probably most of us will switch to whatever cost >>>> less than the then very high price of oil. Certainly at $1000 or more per >>>> tank full of gas, the buyers for oil would mostly disappear since they >>>> switched to using something cheaper - and thus we never actually used up >>>> all of the oil reserves that exists on the earth. >>> >>> I think the switch at this point will be driven (is being driven) not by >>> economic costs of obtaining and consuming oil, but by the need to reduce >>> carbon emissions if we wish to continue living on earth. >>> >>>> So in real life we won't actually end up running out of oil. Whatever >>>> humankind switches to for energy will have to be manageable and accessible >>>> just like oil has been. It is still not clear what the particular energy >>>> source will be that replaces oil. >>> >>> It’s pretty clear that it’s going to be a migration to electricity as a >>> primary energy technology and a migration away from petroleum based sources >>> for generating electricity towards a combination of renewables including >>> solar, wind, probably some nuclear for the foreseeable future, and possibly >>> some clean hydrogen based sources. Battery technologies are continuing to >>> improve rapidly, increasing storage density, efficiency, and reliability >>> (which is the main advantage in petro fuels over electricity, the easy >>> high-density storage). >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> It truly depends on how you define most at this point… In terms of >>> addresses deployed, IPv6 has surpassed IPv4 some years back. In terms of >>> traffic mix, IPv6 exceeds 60% in many environments today. In terms of total >>> content sites available, yes, IPv6 is still in the minority. In terms of >>> eyeballs, IPv4 has more because there aren’t very many IPv6-only eyeballs >>> yet, but the (admittedly slim) majority of eyeballs have IPv6 capabilities >>> at this time. >>> >>>> So it is likely that we may never actually run out of IPv4 addresses >>>> (especially because of the uneven spread of them). The cost per address >>>> as it increases and becomes expensive and prohibitive will eventually >>>> drive organizations that want to add even more services to the Internet, >>>> to look for alternative IP energy to run those Internet services on. The >>>> new IP energy will have to be manageable and accessible just like IPv4 has >>>> been. It is still not clear what the particular IP energy source will be >>>> that replaces IPv4. >>> >>> Arguably, we already have run out of IPv4 addresses, but unlike >>> petrochemicals which are a consumption item, unless you’re a snow-shoe >>> spammer, IPv4 addresses aren’t consumed in the process of usage. IPv4 >>> addresses can continue to be used as long as there are hosts to put them on >>> and they can continue to be moved around to different hosts using ever more >>> painful and expensive ways to share them among multiple hosts. >>> >>>> Certainly IPv6 is a leading possibility and it may end up actually being >>>> the new IP energy that mankind embraces for future Internet services >>>> because it has had a head start. However, some smart engineer(s) >>>> somewhere working in a garage (Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak) may very well >>>> develop an IPv4 compatible protocol that can be used along with IPv4 >>>> making the transition away from IPv4 easier and less costly - and if that >>>> happens maybe we end up with IPv8. >>> >>> It’s not only the current leading possibility, it’s currently the only >>> viable alternative on the table. >>> >>> Before you buy into the idea of an IPv8, I suggest you research the name >>> “Jim Flemming”. >>> >>> In order to be IPv4-compatible, you need to find a way to put an address >>> that can represent at least 32 billion unique host addresses into a 32-bit >>> field. >>> >>> NAT sort of pretends to do this by using some arbitrary fraction of the >>> TCP/UDP Port numbers to effectively extend the address bits. The problem is >>> that this ONLY works effectively with protocols that have ports or >>> something like it and it fails miserably with lots of things that used to >>> be convenient. It makes development and testing far more expensive and >>> worse, the expectation that all end-user networks are structured in that >>> particular way creates an environment where software developers make really >>> bad choices based on that assumption. >>> >>> As a glaring example, Philips Hue assumes that they can identify hosts on >>> the same network as one of their lighting control bridges by mapping the >>> public IP address. They literally assume that all hosts on the same network >>> share a single public IP address. This assumption (heavily baked into their >>> code on both server and client side) leads to multiple problems: >>> >>> 1. They need an entirely different solution to cope with >>> networks that don’t NAT, and thus >>> they’ve avoided adding IPv6 capabilities to their product >>> because it’s “hard”. >>> >>> 2. They break utterly in situations where the network has >>> multiple public addresses, >>> whether a lack of NAT (such as is my situation), or an >>> environment where the >>> NAT pool includes more than one address that could be >>> selected at egress. >>> >>> 3. Everyone behind the same CGN is assumed to be in the same >>> household. I’ll >>> leave the consideration of the security implications of this >>> particular gem as >>> an exercise for the reader… Hint: NOT GOOD. >>> >>> In short, lots of smart people have tried to figure out how to put 48 bits >>> of data in a 32 bit field and so far, the results have been fairly >>> universally “that doesn’t work.”. >>> >>> Hence, we built an incompatible protocol with as much backwards-looking >>> capability as made sense to put into it. >>> >>> For example, an IPv6-only application can easily work in an IPv4-only, >>> IPv6-only, or Dual-stack environment so long as it accepts (sane operating >>> systems) or sets (BSD-based operating systems) the socket option >>> IPV6_V6ONLY=false. >>> >>> At that point, the OS takes care of all the heavy lifting and IPv4 >>> connections look to the application just like IPv6 connections, but the >>> addresses are of the form ::ffff:aabb:ccdd where a, b, c, d are the >>> hexadecimal values of the octets in the IP address. In fact, in text >>> representation, most OS’s present these as ::ffff:192.0.2.1 for reader >>> convenience. Inside the system, of course, it’s still just a string of 128 >>> 0s and 1s. The conversion to hex or any other format is just that, a >>> display convenience. >>> >>>> 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?). 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. >>> >>> Yes, this is still commonplace in AFRINIC as a matter of fact. There’s a >>> large faction that does not understand that keeping addresses on the shelf >>> in the registry doesn’t extend the viability of IPv4, it just preserves the >>> duration of the free pool creating the illusion of longevity while actually >>> creating an artificially early runout because those who need addresses are >>> not able to get them. >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> Agreed. While I didn’t support that particular proposal, it wasn’t to >>> preserve IPv4 in the free pool, it was because I felt it had other flaws >>> that would lead to fraud. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 ([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. _______________________________________________ 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.
