[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )
On Feb 4, 2011, at 2:33 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> Mantra: "It doesn't matter. V4 is dead."
>> IPv4 is not dead. It's an aging parent with a young child - hopefully
>> it will be around long enough to see IPv6 reach maturity. :)
> I guess my feeling when I wrote that is that we are possibly going to
> get in a situation of diminishing return where more and more work is
> being done on something that is no longer growing. "Dead" might be the
> wrong word but maybe we should treat it as "fully mature".
I think we can agree on your last paragraph. IPv4 is no longer the focus for growing networks. But my perspective is that some work needs to be done to keep IPv4 viable during the transition - work in the opposite direction of ARIN's current momentum.
ARIN has done a fine job of making sure that IP addresses were not an advantage or hurdle to growth of the Internet. They did this by rationing according to need. Very socialist, in the best sense of the word. And as a result of that policy it was easier to build networks, start businesses, etc; the RIR's socialist policy was a great boon to the capitalism that drove the Internet's growth.
But the situation has changed. Soon, we will no longer be rationing supply, because the supply is gone. As a result of IPv4 maturity, and the impending scarcity that entails, I'd suggest RIR policy should be to relax control of the resource. Allow a market to do what markets do best: efficiently distribute a scarce resource.
The benefit of an open address market would be significant. Hosting companies need IPv4 addresses more than broadband companies; Western countries have more IPv4 addresses than non-Western countries. And without a market, organizations with excess supply have no incentive to redistribute it. Markets create the incentive.
If ARIN relaxes the official position regarding IPv4 management policy, then we can step away from IPv4 and focus on IPv6.