The Mother of all Solutions (Was Class B for Sale or Rent)

Sun Mar 9 22:06:09 UTC 1997

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 8:34 AM, Ehud Gavron[SMTP:GAVRON at ACES.COM] wrote:
@ 	Let me add a word to Brett's comments.  This IS a world-scale
@ 	economy.
@ 
@ 	If a LARGE GROUP OF NETWORK PROVIDERS (that's us, btw, nanog),
@ 	decided TOMORROW that WE will assign address space and route to
@ 	it, there is no force in the world that will charge for it, or
@ 	be able to change it.
@ 
@ 	Here's the Ehud Scenario:
@ 		1. Tomorrow Paul Vixie gets a pirate hair up his dec alpha
@ 	  	   and puts in 64.in-addr.arpa. through 126.in-addr.arpa.
@ 		   in F.
@ 		2. We start assigning nets from this block (64/8-126/8).
@ 		3. We start routing to this block (ok, I don't own a backbone
@ 	    	   yet, but let me use "we" meaning nanog for now ;)
@ 

Your scenario is very interesting. I suggest that you study
prior art. Also, in my other posting I left one of the players out.
I have labeled it 1A. Many owners will not want to "manage"
their blocks just like many people who own large office buildings
do not want to manage the property.

	1. The ownership of aggregated IPv4 addresses (i.e. blocks).
	1A. The management of the blocks.
	2. The leasing of those blocks.
	3. The registration of those blocks.
	4. The reverse resolution of those blocks.
	5. The routing announcement of those blocks.

@ 	Is this unlawful?  No.  There's no law about announcing routes,
@ 	nor about delegating them in private internets.  For practical
@ 	purposes, NANOG members form a private internet.  
@ 
@ 	Is this unethical?  Some would say 'Sure, only the InterNIC and
@ 	IANA can assign IP addresses.'  Some tell me this thinking is
@ 	obsolete.  Jim Fleming would salivate, and Karl Deninger would
@ 	laugh.  Well, maybe.  
@

Please study prior art before jumping to conclusions.

Also, you might want to study the SBA/NSF proposal(s)
that call for the creation of 10 regional InterNIC clones
in the U.S. Each regional InterNIC would have several TLDs
and several /8s to manage to generate revenue to help
cover their costs.

@ 	Is this impractical?  I dunno.  I figure we could bribe Paul with
@ 	$ 2000 per assignment regardless of size (after all, two NS entries
@ 	are all the same cost).  After about 52 /24s, he'd double his 
@ 	yearly retainer income (all figures guesses with no real basis)
@ 	and probably be able to retire to Caymans.  (That's a Brett Scenario).
@

I would first check with the owners of the various
parts of the IPv4 space.

@ 	Oh yeah, it's my idea, so I want anyone who gets an allocation from	
@ 	this scheme to send me a bottle of single-malt Scotch.
@ 
@ 	Let me know if I've left something out.
@ 
@ 	Ehud
@ 
@ 	p.s. If I've pissed off anybody in this post, send me a private
@ 	     note via us mail.  Be sure to include a bottle of single malt
@ 	     Scotch or your note will be returned.  Just like email to admin at crl

Why would anyone be upset...?

People most likely fall into one of the following categories...

	1. Owner
	2. Homesteader
	3. Manager
	4. Registrar
	5. Resolver
	6. Router

>From what I understand most of the NANOG people
are #4, #5, or #6. The issues you have raised will mostly
be of interest to people in the categories #1 to #3.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

e-mail:
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)