[arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
On 9/30/10 9:44 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe that we're saying anything different with respect to
>> inequities. Look at it from this perspective; if you have 1M /28
>> reservations and you have 1 x /18 reservation, in order to fulfill all or
>> most of the /28's you'll eat away at the /18.
> And if you have 1,000 /25s and 1 /18 you'll eat away at the /25s in order
> to give something to the /18 guy. Correct. Not giving the entire available
> space to the first guy in line just because he got there a couple of hours
> ahead isn't my idea of unfair.
Let's look at populated sample pool with the minimum set to /25:
50% = /25
40% = /24
5% = /20
5% = /18
Let's reduce the pool by 50%
50% lose nothing
40% lose 128 addrs
5% lose 2,048 addresses
5% lose 8,192 address
Let's show cost @ $1,000 per addr to amplify the damage
128 replacement addresses = $128,000.00
2,048 replacement addresses = $2,048,000.00
8,192 replacement address = $8,192,000.00
>>>> Assumptions: Normal member fees apply except when reservations reduced and
>>>> forced to the market aside from other requirements not addressed through
>>>> this proposal:
>>>> Cost $1,000 /32
>>>> Need: /32
>>>> Assn1 Assn2 Addr Deficit Loss
>>>> Funded 10 100 $0
>>>> Reduce 10% 10 90 $10,000
>>>> Reduce 20% 10 80 $20,000
>>>> Reduce 30% 10 70 $30,000
>>>> Reduce 40% 10 60 $40,000
[ clip ]
>>>> Assumptions: Every address acquired through a transition proposal is a cost
>>>> savings to the network in a fair and equitable manner.
>>>> Cost $1,000 /32
>>>> Need1: 10 Need2: 100
>>>> QTRS Need1 Need2
>>>> 12 120 1200
>>>> Reduced 4 8 80 800
>>>> Reduced 4 4 40 400
>>>> Max Total Savings: $120,000 $1,200,000 All quarters
>>>> Min Total Savings: $40,000 $400,000 All quarters
>>>> You might argue that the numbers are way disparate. Since the assignments
>>>> are need evaluated, the savings delta are not overly relevant. Unless we
>>>> to be communists.
>>>> If we are using a general ratio of one V6 /32 = v6 /64 with the quarterly
>>>> model we push out far more v6 that we would with the reductions as well.
>>>> Theoretical priming of the v6 pump: more is better even if shorter..
[ clip ]
>>> I do think your estimate of $1,000 per /32 is speculative at best.
>> What do you think that this cost is currently?
> Since I don't have any legitimate address trading data to back it up, and,
> since to the best of my knowledge, no-one has exercised 8.3 as yet,
> neither do you, I would argue that any number would be speculative
> at best.
I chose $1,000 as an amplifier since it certainly draws attention and I
think that based on what I know about the market, it's feasible.
The data at the below URL is almost three years old, but still relevant with
respect to a normative number:
I have other data points on current pricing. I'm not the market maker so
please see me at the NANOG or ARIN meeting to discuss if needed. Anyone for
that matter - if you are truly interested in what's coming down the road.
[ clip ]
>> Not sure what the relevance of the follow-up is. No one is advocating that
>> anyone be able to land grab. Any policy that allows that is deficient. I'm
>> advocating that we abandon this proposal again.
> But you're opposing this proposal specifically because it doesn't
> allow for the land grab.
Why don't you build your own financial analysis of this proposal instead of
speculating on motive then? I haven't even factored in the cost of capital
needed or the accounting method to expense the addresses which would raise
the costs higher.
Hope that makes it clearer as to why I am opposing. There simply has to be a