[arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:45 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
> 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:09 PM
> 
>> The real issue is threefold:
>> 
>> 1) Is there enough unused IPv4 in large legacy holders to 
>> make a difference in
>> IPv4 runout rates?
>> 
>> 2) If there is, should ARIN spend time attempting to retrieve it?
>> 
>> 3) If ARIN should, is it even possible to go about doing so 
>> without creating undesirable side effects?
>> 
>> All 3 of these questions are tied up with each other, and if 
>> the answer to any of them is NO then the entire issue is moot.
>> 
>
>If this is the real issue, then why do the discussions of legacy address
>holders always turn into claims that legacy address holders haven't paid
>their fair share?
>

Because there are a lot of people out there who think that
IPv4 resources are going to have value forever.  I have seen
repeated over and over on the list how we are going to be seeing
IPv4 routed on the Internet backbone for the next 20 years.
Meanwhile a small minority of people keep raising their hands and
saying "Ah, guys, practically nobodies routers have enough ram
to have a full IPv4 AND IPv6 BGP table"

The login among the "make legacy holders pay" crowd is something
along the lines of:

"we need IPv4 to delay IPv6 since we aren't ready for IPv6 yet.
Legacy holders have a lot of IPv4.  Since they aren't paying for
it they must not be using it.  Let's start billing them and the
sky will start raining IPv4.  How do we justify starting billing
them?"

This why question #1 exists.

It's pretty clear that if the answer to question #1 & #2 was yes, then
no matter how much thrashing around the legacy holders would do,
they are going to start paying.  In a situation where a small group
is sitting on the vast majority of some resource that the majority
needs to have, the small group always loses.  If not legally, by
revolution.  Meaning in this case that if the legacy holders were
to attempt to hold on to large tracts of unused IPv4, they would
lose, despite the legalities.  It's just too valuable.  In human
endeavor, laws are always bent by the rich to suit their needs, and
the majority has the gold, in this case.

By contast if the answer to #1 is NO, then the movers and shakers
are not going to pay any attention to the legacy holders holdings.
They are going to be frying bigger fish.

I have seen conflicting responses on this forum as to whether the
answer to #1 is yes or no.

Ultimately, though, whether unused legacy IPv4 could stave off IPv6
is a moot issue - IPv6 is eventually going to be on the Internet.
If it is like every other technological advance, it will displace
IPv4 in short order on the backbone - probably much shorter than
anyone believes.  And once IPv6 reaches the tipping point, then
the operators on the backbone are going to stop routing IPv4.
People don't seem to understand how easy it is for a network that
is 1000 miles away from you, is not directly connected to either you
or your upstreams, and that you have absolutely no control over,
can make an arbitrary decision that will royally screw you over.
Once IPv4 runout happens, no responsible network admin anywhere
will be able to make the assumption that IPv4 will be completely
globally routable - and the threat that one day that admin is
going to pick up the phone and take a call from a customer that
is screaming because they can't reach some website or other that
has a path that happens to go through Wonkulating Grokulating
network that has decided they are done routing IPv4, that will
spur IPv6 switchover.

The WIPO may have made it so that domain names are now considered
trademarkable - so that if I decide to start using someone
else's domain name, that I can get sued.  But it is preposterous
to think that WIPO or any other group in the UN can force integers
to become trademarkable property.  If they could, someone
would have trademarked the number "666" and be making a mint.
Without IPv4 having any kind of legal standing, there is no way
to compel a network operator to route it.

And as soon as a few people start abandoning IPv4 for real, that
suddenly commences the beginning of a surplus of IPv4 that will
instantly suck all value out of any legacy holder's assignments.

So in summary, I find the "not paying fair share" calls to be
specious.  As I've said, this is a self-healing issue and the
ONLY thing that would possibly justify further investigation would
be if the answer to question #1 were YES, and then we would have
to decide what the answer to #2 is.

Ted