as long as we do not care about fragmentation of the routing space this
idea is neat
Scott
---
Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to
manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization
attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from
a webpage, or a world-wide DHCP server for Amana ( and one for Maytag, etc.)
to register a refrigerator. And easier administration should translate into
lower cost...... :-) My apologies in advance for polluting the IETF announce
list. Btw, did we ever find out how many people were on that elevator? :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:51 AM
To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis
thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons
for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility
to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating
costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN).
It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household
appliances
will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have
a
one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built
into
the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an
address
into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it
end-to-end unique)?
Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one
and
we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf
announce
list!
Vint Cerf
At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>
=================================================================
I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999
MCI WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047
"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"
INET 2001: Internet Global Summit
5-8 June 2001
Sweden International Fairs
Stockholm, Sweden
http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
