Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!

From: "Rakers, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:40:51 -0400

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-masked]]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Andre-John Mas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:41:52 -0400

> within (one street address can house many people, not just one).

The factor in all this is cheap firewalls/routers. With these coming
down in price they will be installed standard when asking for a cable
internet connection, or such. Also these boxes, probably being the size
of a phoneset would probably also include a DHCP server for addressing
the
various devices in the home, much like what is done for Sun's SunRay
line
of devices. If this does happen I just hope that they offer the option
for expert users to configure the devices themselves. The price factor
that will make these an option is arounf USD 100.

Andre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:50:13 -0500

No, what will happen is one IPv6 prefix per household/car/whatever,
and therefore no reason for NAT.

  Brian

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:10:09 -0400

> within (one street address can house many people, not just one).

IMNSHO, NAT is evil. While most end-luser applications work "fine" with
it, it does impose restrictions on what can be done as compared to
possibilities in the end-to-end universe. 

*Designing* something to be NAT in  a world that goes toward a larger
address space is broken and should be avoided att all practical costs. 

I do sense that this has been discussed before and will now stop. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson                    DNS Technichian
+46 709 174 840                 NIC-SE
+46 8 545 85 707                MN1334-RIPE

---

From: Andre-John Mas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:27:54 -0400

Andre

---

From: R A Lichtensteiger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:30:53 -0400

Rakers, Jason wrote:

<> 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).

Bad analogy, even assuming all parties involved agreed that NAT was
a good thing (tm).  Many don't and IPv6 was designed to alleviate
addr space problems, not work around them (whcih is what NAT is).

Using your analogy, consider that people do not have one single
address -- One may have home, work, vacation house and POBox. 
They're all valid and you'll find me at all of them (Well, except
work <g>). But not at the same time, and sometimes visitors need to
be rerouted from one location to another.

RL
-- 
R A Lichtensteiger		[email-masked]
				781 276 4500

        Could not open /usr/bin/fortune. Lid on cookie jar sealed

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:43:34 -0400

> today's street address).  

make that an address *block* per household.

> The household will perform NAT for all devices

not likely - putting NAT in the path would make the household
net nearly useless (because a lot of the things for which you want 
a household net imply assigning an external address to devices
within your household) 

We are of course talking about IPv6 here - IPv4 doesn't have anywhere
nearly enough address space to give every household a single routable
address.  And NATs make no sense at all in a world where you have plenty 
of address space.

At best NAPTs trade off address bits for port number bits - and in IPv6 
port number bits are the ones that are scarce.  

Keith

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:36:02 +0200

> 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).

I think we'll see IP addressable toasters and washing machines just after we
all switch from automobiles to hovercars and from telephones to
Picturephones.  According to predictions being made by futurists for the
past few decades, all of these things are due to happen Real Soon Now.

The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it
should be done.

---

From: Steven Cotton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:05:24 +0200 (CEST)

> The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it

Definitely - what benefit can I get from my toaster having Internet
conectivity when I will be able to use my blender to read mail?

-- 
steven

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 13:16:20 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Picturephones.  

but before the Yanks can actually roam between all their own
cellular telephone networks?

In any case, there's already:

http://www.margherita2000.com/
'The first washing machine on the internet. She listens to you and she
 talks back.' (note the E-MAIL on the machine's controller display.)
http://www.merloni.com/eng/ari_digi.htm
(using the so-called 'WRAP' protocol)

http://www.allnetdevices.com/news/9912/991203washing.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000111464113065&pg=/et/00/5/4/ecfkit04.html

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.88.html#subj9

(The only recent toaster development I'm aware of is the clear
 toaster, based on treating glass with some rare earth metal, e.g.
 http://www.appliancemagazine.com/mm/wt/html/confortec_2000_p10.html
 http://www.archimagazine.com/nphili1.htm )

> According to predictions being made by futurists for the

L.

'for an investment of over 30 billion lire.' We're talking good
return on an investment of a dollar fifty or so here.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:59:34 -0700

>past few decades, all of these things are due to happen Real Soon Now.

The mere fact that some predicted technologies never materialized does not
mean that all predicted technologies will fail to materialize.

Steve