When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see
a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices
within (one street address can house many people, not just one).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
>
> I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary
> and arrived at two philosophical questions.
>
> I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of
> my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee
> for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee
> but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I
> believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the
> fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided.
> Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the
> conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh!
>
> If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a
> thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and
> stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is
> whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly)
> drop coins in the ARIN fountain?
>
> Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (<1024) is tight. Using the
> same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port
> space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as
> protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly
> becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model?
>
> Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of
> port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
>
>
>
>
>
