[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Costs of Portable IP Space [was: New Node]

Thus spake grarpamp (grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx):

> On 8/24/10, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the US, the place to go is ARIN.
> To go fully PI, US, with your own registration everywhere,  you'd need
> roughly...
> /22 ~ /21 = $1250, available for multihoming only, annual
>  AS = $500, for multihoming, annual
> /20 ~ /19 = $2250, available for single and multi, annual
> $100 = ARIN OrgID ISP fee, annual
> $15 = domain name, annual
> $50 ~ $bling = internet pipe, x2 for multi, month
> $50 ~ $bling = 1RU, month
> $500 = server, once
> $beer = cool upstream with clue, every few trouble tickets
> plus whatever else I missed.
> Budget of $250/mo might give you perpetual service.

After thinking about this and other ways of enabling the default exit
policy in the US, I am beginning to wonder if the default exit policy
is a really good idea here.

Let's say everything goes according to plan, and we manage to get an
IP allocation that allows us to handle abuse directly at a very high
capacity Tor node, and we use it to run the default policy and send
the BayTSP and MediaSentry complaints to /dev/null.

Eventually, these organizations realize that their spam is being
ignored, and report this to their clients: Universal, Viacom, and
others. Let's say the best of all outcomes happens: they sue us, EFF
defends us, and we win the case, establishing legal precedent that
DMCA 512(a) claims need to actually prove repeated subscriber
infringement before an ISP needs to do anything (a long shot, IMO).

I believe it would be quite easy for big content to turn right around
and lobby for even stronger DMCA protections, and possibly even data
retention for anonymity providers, and succeed in changing the law.

The problem is that there is a rather large climate of Intellectual
Property xenophobia in the United States. This is possibly due to one
of our major exports being IP, content, and design, rather than
actual products, and one of our main competitors being the
IP-disrespecting China. It is also combined with the fact that the
Obama administration and Democrats in general tend to receive larger
contributions from Hollywood and big content than Republicans.

There has been a large influx of big content/copyright lawyers at the
DoJ, and the FBI's #1 investigative priority is copyright
infringement, which indicate these current trends:


We also already have ACTA on the horizon. I'm not sure if giving ammo
to people who have managed to rewrite copyright law every time the
first Mickey Mouse drawings are about to pass into public domain is
something we want to do.

Also, personally, I'd rather see P2P traffic on an purely internal
overlay network like I2P, rather than overloading a network that is
vital for general anonymous communication with the rest of the
Internet, like Tor. Tor isn't even safe for P2P anyway:

As such, I've tried to add yet more ports to the reduced exit policy:
and I think this is the policy we should advise for high-speed nodes
in the US.

Thoughts about this?

Mike Perry
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs

Attachment: pgpqjvSN3i05m.pgp
Description: PGP signature