The problem I see is that there are services where a fixed IP number is necessary. For example root servers. I have some experience in this context. These are not promising. The small subset of IP numbers I administrate tends to get filtered out time and again, without notice. I have to police it myself, And then start making noise. I have no idea who does it. I guess: computers. (To be clear: The RIRs are not to blame!) This is about a full class C block. The internet is a cooperation of independent businesses. These make choices. We may not like them, but we cannot tell politicians to change them. We have to talk to the companies... On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, at 14:52 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote: > And you can't get "a single IP address" from any RIR. Perhaps you > can from an ISP (I have never tried). The critical constraint here, > which few people seem to understand, is the need for route > aggregation. In other words, ISPs must be given their addresses > in contiguous number blocks so that they can reduce the number of > routes identified in their routing tables by lumping those contiguous > addresses together into one route. That is why you can't have > IP address portability under the current system. > > >>> Harold Feld <[log in to unmask]> 9/9/2004 2:05:15 PM >>> > My understanding from community networks here in the U.S. that ARIN > will > charge $2,500/yr for an IPv6 block. While cheap for a business, this > is > out of the question for CWNs -- especially given the alternative of NAT > boxes. > > Harold > > At 01:47 PM 9/9/2004, Adam Peake wrote: > >At 11:35 AM -0400 9/9/04, Harold Feld wrote: > >>I believe that we should raise the issue of the administration of > the > >>number space within the context of the WGIG. We should highlight > those > >>issues in number allocation that inhibit noncommercial use of the > Internet > >>and should press for examination of these policies with a goal of > changing > >>them to policies that facilitate noncommercial use. > >> > >>Similarly, competitive effects of IP address allocation should be > >>examined. Artificially inflated prices caused by allocation policies > that > >>inhibit the development of competition hurt all users, but > noncommercial > >>users in particular. Artificially inflated prices are essentially a > >>regressive tax on IP allocations. > > > > > >Harold, > > > >How much do RIRs charges for a single IP address, I am pretty sure > APNIC > >works out at about 1 cent / address (it might be as much as 3 cents. > US > >not AU.) Where's the problem, with the RIR or ISP? (I don't know, > this > >is a genuine question!) > > > >I am very interested in finding out if RIR open policy processes > work. > >Something we've discussed in other lists is how some of the early > large > >allocations (the pre 1995 blocks) might be recovered. Some people in > Japan > >have mentioned IP number portability as a problem, plenty of broadband > and > >growing home networks (I am technically clueless, but I think there > are > >kind of hard wired reasons why that's hard.) > > > >Thanks, > > > >Adam > > > > > > > > > > > >>Harold > >> > >>At 07:21 PM 9/8/2004, you wrote: > >>>Not sure what this means. The tendency is to allocate number space > to > >>>large players (big ISPs which then sub-allocate to smaller > comapnies > >>>etc.), with no possibility to have your own small subset of IP > space > >>>as an end user (even if you are an .org with 100 computers). Is > this > >>>what you'd like to have changed? With IPv6 this seems sort of > >>>impossible (so I am told). I think it is a pity too. > >>> > >>>On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, at 16:32 [=GMT-0400], Harold Feld wrote: > >>> > >>>> Allow me to suggest an addition: > >>>> > >>>> 5. Access to number space in a manner that fosters non-commercial > access > >>>> and is competitively neutral. > >>>> > >>>> Harold Feld > >>>> > >>>> At 11:38 AM 9/5/2004, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>> > >>> "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]> 9/5/2004 12:23:56 AM >>> > >>>> > >Can we identify five to seven leading issues and > recommendations > >>>> > >that we think are the most pressing with regard to IG? These > can > >>>> > >be either individual issue-areas (e.g. management of > identifiers is > >>>> > >obviously one of them) or cross-cutting meta-level problems. > >>>> > > >>>> >Our forthcoming report will clarify many of these issues. > >>>> >We (the Internet Governance Project) will be able to release > >>>> >it in a few days. At the moment we are still subject to a > >>>> >vetting process. Unfortunately, some of the actors are playing > >>>> >games, either strategically refusing to comment or commenting > >>>> >privately but telling us that they are officially "not > commenting" > >>>> >(but still giving us some valuable insight into what they > think). > >>>> > > >>>> >Nevertheless, I can identify several areas that I think will > >>>> >prove to be strategic: > >>>> > > >>>> >1. Relationship of Intellectual Property Protection to > >>>> >Free Expression and Privacy. > >>>> >I believe that certain international organizations and > >>>> >perhaps some business interests will attempt to claim > >>>> >that IPR is off the table, and that it has nothing to do > >>>> >with Internet governance. Nothing could be further > >>>> >from the truth. The Internet has forced a complete > >>>> >revision of global copyright and trademark agreements > >>>> >In a variety of venues, including > >>>> >WIPO and ICANN, we see IPR protection issues > >>>> >coming into direct contact with free expression and > >>>> >privacy norms and even some scientific inquiry norms. > >>>> >These issues should not be worked out exclusively > >>>> >in arenas such as WIPO, which are historically mandated > >>>> >to serve IPR interests and see IP owners as their > >>>> >constituency. > >>>> > > >>>> >2. ICANN's status as a non-state actor. > >>>> >This is a tricky one. ICANN is under attack on three fronts, > >>> > >1) its basis in US Govt/law 2) its non-governmental nature > >>> > >3) the degree to which it does "policy" as opposed to > >>>> >"technical management" (which may be just an extension of > >>>> >issue 2). There is no doubt that specific governments intend > >>>> >to make an issue of this, and there is still the possibility > that > >>>> >it will overwhelm everything else. Imho, we need to defend > >>>> >the multi-stakeholder, non-state governance of the regime > >>>> >against the possibility that it will become more governmental > >>>> >and regulatory, while recognizing (critically) that ICANN > *does* > >>>> >do policy and supporting efforts to find a model that > >>>> >does not rely on US govt contracting. There are some even > >>>> >deeper issues regarding the use of contracting as a global > >>>> >governance mechanism, too much to go into here. > >>>> > > >>>> >3. Relationship between security/surveillance on the > >>>> >Internet and civil liberties. > >>>> >Here again, the narrow, issue-specific regimes focused > >>>> >on attacking terrorism/crime tend to override other legitimate > >>>> >concerns. We could promote a broadened dialogue > >>>> >that forces Internet surveillance and security measures to be > >>>> >respectful of human rights in a globally uniform way. > >>>> > > >>>> >4. Right to internetwork globally > >>>> >The most fundamental issue is the hardest to convey. > >>>> >Territorial governments must formally recognize and > >>>> >explicitly accept the non-territorial nature of IP networking > >>>> >and the Internet's architecture. No serious agreements about > >>>> >Internet governance in any given area can be made until that > >>>> >issue is dealt with. Either the potential of global networking > >>>> >is accepted as a factual starting point, or governance > >>>> >gravitates toward chopping it up into territorially-controlled > >>>> >architectures and resource allocation procedures (thus > >>>> >destroying much of the value of the Internet). It may be > >>>> >too much to ask territorial governments to accept the > >>>> >reality and salience of nonterritorial interconnection, but > >>>> >that is really the choice they are faced with. > >>>> > > >>>> >--MM >