[ppml] hoarding (was Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe ofAdditional Requests)

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> This is a red herring.  Would calling the things that are 
> being bought and sold "Address IRUs" make you (and Steve 
> Ryan) feel better?

No. In fact *YOUR* comment is the red herring. IP address
allocations/assignments are not IRUs. For reference, here is the
definition of an IRU from an AT&T contract that I found during a quick
search of the web:

-------------
1.12  "Indefeasible Right to Use" or "IRU" shall mean the exclusive,
unrestricted and (except in the case of a Payment Event of Default)
indefeasible
right to use the relevant Capacity (including equipment, fibers or
capacity) for
any legal purpose. The granting of such IRU does not convey title or
legal
ownership of any fibers or equipment on the AT&T Network. Except in the
case of
a Payment Event of Default (as defined below), the granting party shall
have no
right to revoke or restrict in any manner or to any degree whatsoever,
through
injunctive relief or otherwise, the use of the Right to Use granted to
the
receiving party. Notwithstanding the occurrence of a breach by the
receiving
party of any legal duty or obligation imposed by any contract, by the
law of
torts (including simple or gross negligence, strict liability or willful
misconduct), or by federal or state laws, rules, regulations, orders,
standards
or ordinances, during the Term, it being understood and agreed that each
such
breach shall be compensable, if at all, by a remedy at law and not at
equity.
-----------

In fact, ARIN hands out a limited right to use which is defeasible.

> There are over 1 billion legacy addresses.  I'm told by a 
> (fairly :-)) reliable source that about 4% of that is 
> actually routed.  

That is the crux of the issue. The hoarders are already there. They have
a stock of legacy IP addresses that they are sitting on in the hopes
that a market can develop. Because these legacy addresses are not
registered, we don't even know who these players are.

> The problem isn't the _ARIN community_ "cohering" on the 
> topic of address property rights.  It is the folks who 
> collectively hold more address space than all the RIRs 
> combined cohering on the topic, particularly if you're 
> proposing to take away their addresses without compensation.  

You've hit the nail on the head. The big difference between legacy
holders and ARIN holders is that ARIN holders are playing by the rules,
negotiating a common agreement with each other on a level playing field.
The legacy holders are hiding in the shadows relying on vague threats of
legal action. I believe that when push comes to shove, the U.S.
government will come out on the side of an orderly regime (not market)
because that is generally what the USG supports. For instance, SEC, WTO,
Sarbanes-Oxley. Until the Department of Commerce formally makes a
statement to the contrary, I believe that if early court cases do not
establish the supremacy of ARIN rules over legacy holders, then the DOC
will step in and move things in that direction. The best that legacy
holders can hope for is that there will be a ruling which gives them a
short time to come into compliance and show that their legacy
allocations are in fact, in accordance with ARIN rules.

>  There was an effort a few years back within the 
> RIRs to revise 2050 so that it actually came closer to 
> matching current practice, but the guy doing it apparently 
> didn't hate his life as much as it seemed (:-)) and that 
> effort appears to have died quietly.

That effort received virtually no public support.


> The routing system is going to experience explosive growth.  
> IPv6 has guaranteed that.  

This is untrue. IPv6 does not change the routing system in any
substantial way. It does increase the minimum number of bits per entry
to 128. But at the same time it reduces the number of entries per major
player to one in most cases. At the same time, all the techniques of
mitigating routing table growth issues still exist and can be applied.
The losers would be the small players who want to multihome on the
global stage which is exactly the same as with IPv4, i.e. nobody will
accept my /29 prefix.

--Michael Dillon