ARIN

On May 8, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Indeed.  Right now, the cost of inefficiency is zero and the  
>>> benefit to fixing it is zero, while the cost of fixing it is  
>>> usually nonzero.  It's not surprising that we've seen the results  
>>> we have.  Attach a monetary value to the resource, though, and the  
>>> entire picture changes.
>>>
>> Perhaps, but, there may be unintended consequences of pricing  
>> perfectly
>> valid and efficient usage out of existence in the process.
>
> There are only two choices in front of us once IPv4 exhaustion hits:
>
> 1. New entrants can't enter the IPv4 market at all, because there is  
> no supply left.
> 2. New entrants have to pay someone else for enough supply to enter  
> the IPv4 market.
>
> Yes, #2 means that some new entrants won't be able to afford the  
> cost of entry, and that's bad -- but IMHO it's not as bad as  
> blocking _all_ new entrants.  In fact, some existing players may  
> decide to exit the market because that's more profitable than what  
> they're currently doing with their supply, and that's probably bad  
> too -- but IMHO that's the lesser of the various evils we are forced  
> to choose between.
>
Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion.

I thought you were suggesting that ARIN go to an annual cost per IP  
model
which would in some way increase the cost of holding on to existing  
resources.

Owen