On 23 May 2015, at 2:13 am, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul, > > I find it interesting amid calls for “don’t rearrange the deck chairs” that > you single out my message as the one attempting to shut the conversation down. > > I’m perfectly willing to tolerate whatever discussions people want to have. My apologies Owen, I didn’t mean to single you out. I was merely responding within what I thought was a thread of conversation (but sticking to the original subject: line). Thanks for your reply. I’m interested to understand what you feel would be the “harm” done by David’s proposal. Paul. > > As for the value of a memorable address such as 1.2.3.4 or 1.2.3.*/24, meh. > there is no history of address policy based on memorable or attractive > choices of numbers throughout the useful life of IPv4. As such, it’s hard for > me to get behind any such policy now that IPv4 is (hopefully) into its > winding down towards deprecation days. > > We can discuss it as much as people want to discuss it. I would never presume > to attempt to shut down discussion. However, In terms of the best policy > overall, I still believe my original statement stands. It’s just a /24. It > has lots of noise on it which might be useful for some research purposes. > Most of the exploitations I can think of for it by a company that would bid > for it at auction are, frankly, not very good for most of the users of the > internet. > > So… I oppose auctioning it off as I think this would do more harm than good. > I think its value as a prefix for valid use is very limited due to its > background noise level. > > As such, I stand by my original statement… Use it for whatever research value > it has, then put it out to pasture with the rest of this antiquated 32-bit > address space. > > Owen > >> On May 22, 2015, at 08:34 , Paul Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My understanding is that this is not about “just a single /24” but about >> this particular /24, which is a memorable address and may be useful for that >> reason. >> >> If it is useful (for some undetermined purpose) then its use may extend >> through the entire remaining life of IPv4 on the Internet, not just the >> “life” of remaining IPv4 address pools. >> >> As a general comment, I would observe that while IPv4 exists on the >> Internet, and certainly while it is still a sort of essential part of the >> infrastructure (to say the least), we might tolerate discussions about IPv4 >> address space, rather than trying to shut them down. >> >> Paul >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC [email protected] >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> >> >> On 22 May 2015, at 8:48 am, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We’re talking about a single /24. >>> >>> Use it for whatever research value it has and then put it out to pasture >>> along with the rest of this antiquated addressing. >>> >>> My $0.02. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> On May 21, 2015, at 12:45 , David Huberman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dean, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your excellent reply. >>>> >>>> I am all for working together to identify a way to get 1.2.3.0/24 into the >>>> hands of a network operator who can do good things with it. The prefix is >>>> trapped in APNIC right now with nowhere to go, and it’s time to set it >>>> free. >>>> >>>> More ideas everyone! We can have a great discussion about it, here and in >>>> Jakarta. >>>> >>>> /david >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:41 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [sig-policy] Fwd: Idea for 1.2.3.0/24 >>>> >>>> Oops wrong button :) >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Dean Pemberton <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Friday, 22 May 2015 >>>> Subject: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24 >>>> To: David Huberman <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi David, Everyone >>>> >>>> If APNIC were to just sell this off then there is no saying that it won't >>>> just appear in some large providers NAT pool. >>>> >>>> I've just visited some providers who wanted address space so much they >>>> would probably bid for this just to have 1.2.3.4 as a flag to wave and the >>>> rest of the /24 just sits in their CGN. That would be terrible for anyone >>>> whose sessions were associated with these addresses. >>>> >>>> I won't elaborate here but there are even potential security issues >>>> related with a malicious actor being able to redirect this about of >>>> traffic. >>>> >>>> Any of these would be a net loss to the Internet community. >>>> >>>> So how can we turn this into a net win? >>>> >>>> I'm not that concerned about the money. Good things can be done with >>>> auction proceeds, but good ideas can come from people without money too. >>>> >>>> For example what if an individual has a great idea to use 1.2.3.4 for the >>>> common good but would never have an ability to win an auction? They might >>>> also have no ability to purchase infrastructure to make the idea happen. >>>> >>>> Nat Morris for eg runs a great any cast DNS service helping lots of people >>>> but I'm pretty sure his wife and dog would notice him going up against >>>> large corps in an auction. >>>> >>>> What about this. >>>> >>>> We take suggestions for the best 'public good' use of 1.2.3.4. >>>> For each of the ideas, let the community show support "a thumbs up/down" >>>> if you will. Also for each of them allow organisations to pitch to deliver >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Market it as recycling trash even :) >>>> >>>> This way the good idea can come from anyone in any part of the world as >>>> long as it benefits all internet users. And large corporations can still >>>> get some exposure by offering to make it happen. >>>> >>>> Imagine the photoshoot. Smart up-and-coming engineer from an LDC alongside >>>> a large multinational helping APNIC to make a difference to us all. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, 22 May 2015, David Huberman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> Hello Policy SIG, >>>> >>>> I have an idea for 1.2.3.0/24 I would like to share with you before >>>> submitting a policy proposal. >>>> >>>> Prop-109 properly directed APNIC to use 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 for >>>> research purposes. That leaves one more significant prefix to deal >>>> with:1.2.3.0/24. It is significant because it contains the IP address >>>> 1.2.3.4. >>>> >>>> 1.2.3.4 is a desirable IP address. It can be used in all sorts of very >>>> interesting applications. It also receives an enormous amount of “junk” >>>> traffic every day, so it requires a fairly hefty infrastructure just to >>>> start routing it. >>>> >>>> My idea is that APNIC should make this prefix available to all parties who >>>> want it. To decide who gets it, I propose an AUCTION where all proceeds go >>>> to a charitable endeavor (perhaps a future APNIC Foundation). As the >>>> potential author of such a proposal, and as the IP address manager at >>>> Microsoft Corporation, I will guarantee that neither I nor my company will >>>> participate in any way in such an auction. This proposal is not to >>>> benefit me or my company. It is to give the prefix out to a network >>>> operator who wants it, in return for money given to charity. >>>> >>>> This is a new idea, and is not fully thought out. So I wanted to post it, >>>> get some reactions, and improve the idea. (Or abandon it if people do not >>>> like it.) >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> David R Huberman >>>> Principal, Global IP Addressing >>>> Microsoft Corporation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Dean Pemberton >>>> >>>> Technical Policy Advisor >>>> InternetNZ >>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob) >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Dean Pemberton >>>> >>>> Technical Policy Advisor >>>> InternetNZ >>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob) >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. >>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>>> * >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
