5 ms·

Controlling 200 times more of a critical resource than the next competitor does not sound like healthy competition.

netr0ute 5y ago
That's if you can define IPV4 as a critical resource. But because anyone can assign any IPv4 address to anything and advertise it with BGP, it can't fit the definition of that.
- remram 5y ago
  There would be penalties for that, maybe even legal ones. How easy it is to steal does not really factor in whether it's a critical resource.
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    Can it be defined as property? I could make a Internet The Second using isolated networks and advertise whatever I wanted. It's not like digital movies and music where it's defined as property under copyright law because it's a creative work.
    - remram 5y ago
      Isolated? Sure. This is the same as saying no one can own a Disney character because anyone can draw it at home. Or no one owns songs because you can freely transmit them between devices you own. People still own those things in most jurisdictions around the world.
      - netr0ute 5y ago
        The thing with Disney is that those characters were created by someone in a creative pursuit. IP addresses, on the other hand, are simply pointers to some location, and so it's an unknown if they can be covered under IP law. Digital copies of media only count as property because of that IP law, or they would be worthless because they can be copied infinitely.
IncRnd 5y ago
That you call global IPv4 addresses to be a critical resource is extremely odd. If I go to prudential.com or to another insurer's website, the IP delivery addressing protocol doesn't affect competition. A user doesn't really see any difference when traffic gets delivered over IPv6 instead of IPv4, so the scarcity of the global IPv4 space is meaningless compared to the incredibly vast usable size of the global IP space.
- usr1106 5y ago
  According to Google's statistics https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html over 65% cannot reach them via IPv6. So offering any service just on IPv6 makes no sense in 99% of the cases. You can use if for some internal cases, if you can be sure that all your users have IPv6 wherever they happen to be. If you are cloud provider and cannot offer your customers as many public IPv4 addresses as they want you are out of business.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    Still, use of IPv4 does not constitute anti-trust.
    - usr1106 5y ago
      Using it doesn't. But having a pool of 200 times more than the next competitor does. I'm not sure whether according to the letter of the law. Courts would decide that a decade later if any administration went to court. But certainly in the spirit of free competition.

That's if you can define IPV4 as a critical resource. But because anyone can assign any IPv4 address to anything and advertise it with BGP, it can't fit the definition of that.

remram 5y ago
There would be penalties for that, maybe even legal ones. How easy it is to steal does not really factor in whether it's a critical resource.
- netr0ute 5y ago
  Can it be defined as property? I could make a Internet The Second using isolated networks and advertise whatever I wanted. It's not like digital movies and music where it's defined as property under copyright law because it's a creative work.
  - remram 5y ago
    Isolated? Sure. This is the same as saying no one can own a Disney character because anyone can draw it at home. Or no one owns songs because you can freely transmit them between devices you own. People still own those things in most jurisdictions around the world.
    - netr0ute 5y ago
      The thing with Disney is that those characters were created by someone in a creative pursuit. IP addresses, on the other hand, are simply pointers to some location, and so it's an unknown if they can be covered under IP law. Digital copies of media only count as property because of that IP law, or they would be worthless because they can be copied infinitely.

IncRnd 5y ago

That you call global IPv4 addresses to be a critical resource is extremely odd. If I go to prudential.com or to another insurer's website, the IP delivery addressing protocol doesn't affect competition. A user doesn't really see any difference when traffic gets delivered over IPv6 instead of IPv4, so the scarcity of the global IPv4 space is meaningless compared to the incredibly vast usable size of the global IP space.

usr1106 5y ago
According to Google's statistics https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html over 65% cannot reach them via IPv6. So offering any service just on IPv6 makes no sense in 99% of the cases. You can use if for some internal cases, if you can be sure that all your users have IPv6 wherever they happen to be. If you are cloud provider and cannot offer your customers as many public IPv4 addresses as they want you are out of business.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Still, use of IPv4 does not constitute anti-trust.
  - usr1106 5y ago
    Using it doesn't. But having a pool of 200 times more than the next competitor does. I'm not sure whether according to the letter of the law. Courts would decide that a decade later if any administration went to court. But certainly in the spirit of free competition.