[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Feb 20 02:53:19 CET 2015
Hi Martin, I'm sorry but your message contains so many lines of reasoning that I cannot follow that I have no way of giving you a meaningful response... Sincerely, Sander > Op 20 feb. 2015 om 02:30 heeft Martin Millnert <millnert at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > > Hi Sander! > >> On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 01:15 +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >> Hello Martin, >> >>> I'm generally in favour of any proposal that hastens the run-out of >>> the final /8. >> >> The main design goal for the final /8 policy was to make sure that >> newcomers still had the possibility of participating on the IPv4 >> internet. > > Indeed. Participate with a major handicap however. One could even argue > that it is in fact anti-competitive compared with the rules pre final-/8 > policy. > > The major architectural reason for and result of it was and is to buy > RIPE NCC time to adjust to the post-depletion Internet world order. > >> It is unfortunately still not possible to run an ISP, hoster etc. >> with only IPv6. > > Indeed it is not. It is likewise pretty futile to launch a new business > as an ISP or hoster on a total of 1024 addresses. Any 'relevant' > business plan for either will necessarily have to contain plans for > acquiring much more than 1024 IPv4 addresses, since the availability of > addresses, especially for hosters, is basically proportional to the > growth possibility of the business. > >> Without the final /8 policy every new company would have to get >> (borrow, buy, rent, ...) IPv4 addresses from existing companies that >> already got IPv4 addresses before we ran out of addresses to >> distribute using our needs-based allocation policies. > > Yes. Why is this worse than getting addresses from RIPE NCC's free > pool, other than the fact that RIPE NCC sells pretty cheap addresses? > >> With the final /8 policy they don't get much but at least they are >> able to participate on the internet. There is still an imbalance >> because of the low amount of addresses they get but at least they have >> *something* to work with. > > I've found size /22 sufficiently large to connect your average random > SMB to the DFZ. > >> I do feel that as a community we should take this into account. >> Although I am sure there are many governments who want to take control >> over the internet we still are in a position that we can (are allowed >> to?) self-regulate the distribution of number resources. > > I'll respond to this paragraph with four points: > > 1) Controlling Internet is much less about deciding who can have what > address space uniquely, from a pool of unallocated space, than it is > about deciding who gets to keep the address space. > Secondary to this is the right of actually using the routing policy > without interference. Many so-called democratic countries already > implement filtering by hijacking via more-specifics, often based on > actual laws, laws that won't change regardless of what this community > self-regulates. > > 2) Since the final /8 will run out sooner (but IMO not soon enough) > rather than later, this community's ability to self-regulate the > distribution of IPv4 addresses is completely dead-end. > > 3) Once v4 address space is depleted and there is no more free pool to > distribute from, the requirement for a needs based distribution model > vanishes. If there is no more scarce resource, there is no more need to > regulate it. > Therefore it could be hypothesized that depleting the final /8 would > *reduce* the need for governments to absorb regulatory work from the > RIPE NCC. Address space becomes increasingly indistinguishable from > radio frequencies - a right to transmit - however with typically global > reach. > > 4) Also, once RIPE NCC's pools are depleted, some non-trivial amount of > bureaucracy will basically go into the shredder, to my and Douglas Adams > delight, saving on the environment. The green choice is therefore to > accelerate the run-out. > >> If we only think about ourselves (the existing participants on the >> internet) and block new entrants from getting even that tiny fraction >> of the addresses that most of us got for free in the past then I am >> afraid that this won't last very long. > > You bring up blocking of new entrants. To paraphrase Bill Gates, "1024 > addresses are enough for everybody". If you were truly honest about > welcoming new entrants to compete on equal terms, a /22 is not enough. > > Your fear for post-depletion is irrational in my opinion. You need to > start entertaining the idea of the fact that it will happen. > > Post-depletion, what do you think governments will need to regulate and > why do you fear it? > > Are you afraid some country with more military than address space > compared to its neighbour will use the former to get more of the latter, > from one that "got lucky"? > > Or are you afraid that governments will apply needs-based logic on > already allocated address space? --> "No ISPs with blue in the logo may > exist any more, now return the space to our national regulatory body, > thanks" > > The best way of mitigating those examples is to empower people to > themselves value their need of address space vs the need of the goods > that it can be traded for. I am convinced that world order will be very > healthy. > If there's any worry about job security, the stock markets of today do > employ people, and keep track of who has what. It's not very different > from what's required from a regional registrar in the future. > And you seldom see governments walking around redistributing stock > between owners by force. > > >> Comments from the working group on this are highly appreciated :) >> >> Cheers, >> Sander >> >> PS: I don't have a strong opinion on the policy proposal under discussion, sorry for drifting a bit from this thread's subject > > I think this discussion is more relevant to APWG than the policy > proposal at hand. :-) > > /M - Pondering the merits of a "reverse the final /8 policy" proposal. >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]