[128703] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Sat Aug 14 13:37:45 2010
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Jimi Thompson <jimi.thompson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C88C3C22.CDC3%jimi.thompson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:37:58 -0700
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson <jimi.thompson@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order =
(1865) not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity =
referred to in this thread.=20
Joel's iPad
>=20
>=20
> On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>=20
>>> Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
>>> folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
>>> last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own
>>> IP addresses, that they were merely holding the addresses in trust =
for
>>> the public they serve. ...
>>=20
>> I dunno. What was New York's responsibility in the 1790s to guys who
>> didn't join the army because they had to stay home and take care of =
their
>> widowed mother and six younger sisters?
>>=20
>> I wouldn't for a moment claim that IPv4 space was a way that was =
uniformly
>> fair or wise or close to ideal. But I don't think you're going to =
have
>> much luck imposing fairness and wisdom retroactively on people who've
>> already got the space.
>>=20
>> R's,
>> John
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
