[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[John Day]

At 23:43 -0400 2010/10/11, Ernie Rubi wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Thanks to all who've chimed here in these last few hours; your 
>insight has been spot on.
>
>From some of the uncomfortable replies to the original 
>broadly-worded questions in my message I can tell I've asked the 
>right questions.
>
>I hope these questions challenge your assumptions about the issue as 
>much as they've made me rethink some of my assumptions about 
>networking and the legal framework of the Internet.
>
>As a final thought, perhaps the 'home address' analogy is strained 
>in this context - maybe we should compare this to the ownership of 
>phone numbers (and their portability).

Not in the least.  I gave it some further thought after I sent my 
last email as to whether "ownership" was linked more to a "service" 
rather than the address per se and realized that no that was not it. 
Any "service" enabled by the address, should not be a property of the 
IP address at all.  The whole problem of ownership comes down to the 
Internet lacking a complete architecture;.

Your analogy to keeping your phone number is flawed.  Phone numbers 
are no longer addresses but application names.  Phone number ceased 
to network addresses 20+ years ago.

As I said, if you think addresses can owned, then you have not 
thought about the problem  carefully enough.

Take care,
John

>
>Finally, I must say I agree with Mr. Cerf in his comments at the IGF 
>a few weeks back; I'm not sure it's does anyone any good to run 
>around selling v4 space - what we likely should be doing is 
>encouraging all who can to implement v6 to the extent possible.


>
>Thank you all very much,
>
>Ernesto M. Rubi
>Sr. Network Engineer
>AMPATH/CIARA
>Florida International Univ, Miami
>Reply-to: <mailto:ernesto at cs.fiu.edu>ernesto at cs.fiu.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20101012/93f7ccef/attachment.htm>