[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

David Conrad wrote:
> Geoff,
> 
> On Mar 5, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>> Some folk may be of the view that IPv4 + NATs is a long term viable 
>> proposition, and may believe that in such a long term scenario the 
>> value of IPv4 addresses may rise steadily over time.
> 
> ...
>> Others may be of the view that one of the major elements in an IPv6 
>> transition is the incentive to stop deploying IPv4 and that may well 
>> be based in an escalating value of IPv4 addresses, which would 
>> increasingly provide economic incentives for entities to deploy IPv6 
>> as their mainstream technology base with minimal IPv4 translation 
>> services.
> ...
>> Personally, I would tend to the first view - that escalating price in 
>> an Ipv4 address market would rapidly drive the industry into IPv6.
> 
> I think you meant that you tend to the second view. :-)

just as well I added the extra text then - yes I can see escalating IPv4 
prices providing clear price signals to players about the relative costs 
of Ipv4 and Ipv6 deployments

> 
> I would agree this scenario is far preferable to the first.  What 
> actually comes about is, of course, hard to determine at this point in 
> time.

obviously.

   I personally believe that policies should be explicitly oriented
> towards promotion of the second view as one outcome of transfers could 
> be a market encouraging increased address space utilization efficiency 
> via NATs, which could reduce the pressure for IPv6 deployment.

Yes, I think we are on much the same page here. I can't see much point 
in attempting to suppress or distort an otherwise clear signal of 
scarcity by creating artificial impediments. Not only does it call into 
question the legitimacy of the party attempting to impose such 
constraints, and raise the question of whether such impositions should 
be accepted by the actors, it seems to me that it leads to no 
particularly useful space.


> 
>> I'd hardly characterize the APNIC policy proposal in such dramatic terms.
> 
> I thought the motto of RIR policy discussions was characterized by the 
> following quote:
> 
> "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction 
> to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day."
>    -- Calvin & Hobbes
> 
> :-)


Well, in that case I'm obviously indebted to your dramatic contribution :-)

> 
>> The APNIC model as it stands leaves the operation of any associated 
>> market to the industry players themselves.
> 
> I understand and in general agree with this approach.
> 
> However, the implication of minimal constraint/regulation is that it 
> gives actors free reign to pursue what they believe to be their best 
> interests without regard to the more global implications of their 
> actions.

You know, I have this suspicion thats what this industry does best, and 
has perfected this approach with more than a century of practice. Indeed 
thats what I thought was encompassed in a economic study of this 
situation where we have managed to get to where we are now by precisely 
this behaviour of each actor diligently pursuing their (of their 
shareholders') interests.


   For example, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong),
> nothing in APNIC policy proposal deters (say) NIRs from efforts to 
> corner the market for their members nor would it appear to discourage a 
> raiding party from Sweden in Viking Long Boats to become an APNIC member 
> and start acquiring address space for use elsewhere.

This is correct - The proposal states that as long as the parties are 
members of APNIC, and the resource is a current resource in the APNIC 
database then APNIC will recognise a transfer of resource holding 
between the two parties.


Geoff