I can only think of a few reasons a company would want to spend any amount of money for a vanity IP address.
I can think of fewer reasons that such a company would do so for one with such a large background radiation problem. Of those, the ones that would carry the most monetary benefit to the company in question are also the ones which are most likely to be considered abusive by at least some members of the internet community, myself included. For example, harvesting the background radiation for information that can be used for business or nefarious purposes (where nefarious is likely more profitable and even business is likely still abusive). Since an auction is, by definition, won by the highest bidder, it stands to reason that the logical conclusion of David’s proposal would be to hand this block over to the company with the strongest economic motivation for using it. Owen > On May 22, 2015, at 10:21 , Paul Wilson <pwil...@apnic.net> wrote: > > > > On 23 May 2015, at 2:13 am, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> I find it interesting amid calls for “don’t rearrange the deck chairs” that >> you single out my message as the one attempting to shut the conversation >> down. >> >> I’m perfectly willing to tolerate whatever discussions people want to have. > > My apologies Owen, I didn’t mean to single you out. I was merely responding > within what I thought was a thread of conversation (but sticking to the > original subject: line). > > Thanks for your reply. I’m interested to understand what you feel would be > the “harm” done by David’s proposal. > > Paul. > > >> >> As for the value of a memorable address such as 1.2.3.4 or 1.2.3.*/24, meh. >> there is no history of address policy based on memorable or attractive >> choices of numbers throughout the useful life of IPv4. As such, it’s hard >> for me to get behind any such policy now that IPv4 is (hopefully) into its >> winding down towards deprecation days. >> >> We can discuss it as much as people want to discuss it. I would never >> presume to attempt to shut down discussion. However, In terms of the best >> policy overall, I still believe my original statement stands. It’s just a >> /24. It has lots of noise on it which might be useful for some research >> purposes. Most of the exploitations I can think of for it by a company that >> would bid for it at auction are, frankly, not very good for most of the >> users of the internet. >> >> So… I oppose auctioning it off as I think this would do more harm than good. >> I think its value as a prefix for valid use is very limited due to its >> background noise level. >> >> As such, I stand by my original statement… Use it for whatever research >> value it has, then put it out to pasture with the rest of this antiquated >> 32-bit address space. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 22, 2015, at 08:34 , Paul Wilson <pwil...@apnic.net> wrote: >>> >>> My understanding is that this is not about “just a single /24” but about >>> this particular /24, which is a memorable address and may be useful for >>> that reason. >>> >>> If it is useful (for some undetermined purpose) then its use may extend >>> through the entire remaining life of IPv4 on the Internet, not just the >>> “life” of remaining IPv4 address pools. >>> >>> As a general comment, I would observe that while IPv4 exists on the >>> Internet, and certainly while it is still a sort of essential part of the >>> infrastructure (to say the least), we might tolerate discussions about IPv4 >>> address space, rather than trying to shut them down. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC d...@apnic.net >>> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >>> >>> >>> >>> On 22 May 2015, at 8:48 am, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> >>>> We’re talking about a single /24. >>>> >>>> Use it for whatever research value it has and then put it out to pasture >>>> along with the rest of this antiquated addressing. >>>> >>>> My $0.02. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On May 21, 2015, at 12:45 , David Huberman <david.huber...@microsoft.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dean, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your excellent reply. >>>>> >>>>> I am all for working together to identify a way to get 1.2.3.0/24 into >>>>> the hands of a network operator who can do good things with it. The >>>>> prefix is trapped in APNIC right now with nowhere to go, and it’s time to >>>>> set it free. >>>>> >>>>> More ideas everyone! We can have a great discussion about it, here and >>>>> in Jakarta. >>>>> >>>>> /david >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net >>>>> [mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Dean Pemberton >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:41 PM >>>>> To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >>>>> Subject: [sig-policy] Fwd: Idea for 1.2.3.0/24 >>>>> >>>>> Oops wrong button :) >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Dean Pemberton <d...@internetnz.net.nz> >>>>> Date: Friday, 22 May 2015 >>>>> Subject: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24 >>>>> To: David Huberman <david.huber...@microsoft.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi David, Everyone >>>>> >>>>> If APNIC were to just sell this off then there is no saying that it won't >>>>> just appear in some large providers NAT pool. >>>>> >>>>> I've just visited some providers who wanted address space so much they >>>>> would probably bid for this just to have 1.2.3.4 as a flag to wave and >>>>> the rest of the /24 just sits in their CGN. That would be terrible for >>>>> anyone whose sessions were associated with these addresses. >>>>> >>>>> I won't elaborate here but there are even potential security issues >>>>> related with a malicious actor being able to redirect this about of >>>>> traffic. >>>>> >>>>> Any of these would be a net loss to the Internet community. >>>>> >>>>> So how can we turn this into a net win? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not that concerned about the money. Good things can be done with >>>>> auction proceeds, but good ideas can come from people without money too. >>>>> >>>>> For example what if an individual has a great idea to use 1.2.3.4 for the >>>>> common good but would never have an ability to win an auction? They >>>>> might also have no ability to purchase infrastructure to make the idea >>>>> happen. >>>>> >>>>> Nat Morris for eg runs a great any cast DNS service helping lots of >>>>> people but I'm pretty sure his wife and dog would notice him going up >>>>> against large corps in an auction. >>>>> >>>>> What about this. >>>>> >>>>> We take suggestions for the best 'public good' use of 1.2.3.4. >>>>> For each of the ideas, let the community show support "a thumbs up/down" >>>>> if you will. Also for each of them allow organisations to pitch to >>>>> deliver it. >>>>> >>>>> Market it as recycling trash even :) >>>>> >>>>> This way the good idea can come from anyone in any part of the world as >>>>> long as it benefits all internet users. And large corporations can still >>>>> get some exposure by offering to make it happen. >>>>> >>>>> Imagine the photoshoot. Smart up-and-coming engineer from an LDC >>>>> alongside a large multinational helping APNIC to make a difference to us >>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, 22 May 2015, David Huberman <david.huber...@microsoft.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello Policy SIG, >>>>> >>>>> I have an idea for 1.2.3.0/24 I would like to share with you before >>>>> submitting a policy proposal. >>>>> >>>>> Prop-109 properly directed APNIC to use 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 for >>>>> research purposes. That leaves one more significant prefix to deal >>>>> with:1.2.3.0/24. It is significant because it contains the IP address >>>>> 1.2.3.4. >>>>> >>>>> 1.2.3.4 is a desirable IP address. It can be used in all sorts of very >>>>> interesting applications. It also receives an enormous amount of “junk” >>>>> traffic every day, so it requires a fairly hefty infrastructure just to >>>>> start routing it. >>>>> >>>>> My idea is that APNIC should make this prefix available to all parties >>>>> who want it. To decide who gets it, I propose an AUCTION where all >>>>> proceeds go to a charitable endeavor (perhaps a future APNIC Foundation). >>>>> As the potential author of such a proposal, and as the IP address >>>>> manager at Microsoft Corporation, I will guarantee that neither I nor my >>>>> company will participate in any way in such an auction. This proposal is >>>>> not to benefit me or my company. It is to give the prefix out to a >>>>> network operator who wants it, in return for money given to charity. >>>>> >>>>> This is a new idea, and is not fully thought out. So I wanted to post >>>>> it, get some reactions, and improve the idea. (Or abandon it if people >>>>> do not like it.) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> David R Huberman >>>>> Principal, Global IP Addressing >>>>> Microsoft Corporation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Dean Pemberton >>>>> >>>>> Technical Policy Advisor >>>>> InternetNZ >>>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob) >>>>> d...@internetnz.net.nz >>>>> >>>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Dean Pemberton >>>>> >>>>> Technical Policy Advisor >>>>> InternetNZ >>>>> +64 21 920 363 (mob) >>>>> d...@internetnz.net.nz >>>>> >>>>> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. >>>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>>>> * >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>> >>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>>> * >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net >>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
