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

From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:21:55 -0000

->-----Original Message-----
->From: Dennis Glatting [mailto:[email-masked]]
->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM
->To: [email-masked]
->Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
->
->

->Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the
->conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the 
->fees. Big duh!

ARIN ..still needs to delegate/admin the space.. costs will be incured.

->
->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?

what does the appliance have to do with a /32 or /28 ??

->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.

Does IANA charge for  port assignment numbers ??

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:52:47 -0500

> ARIN ..still needs to delegate/admin the space.. costs will be incured.

To be completely clear, the conservation argument has gone away as
a constraint of equal importance with route aggregation, and in IPv6
we can give route aggregation much more importance than conservation
in the allocation policies. But an allocation service still costs
money and somebody has to pay for it.

Some of the early deployment scenarios for IPv6 are intended to bypass
this issue; for example see draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-06.txt .

  Brian