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

[David Conrad]

Michael,

On Aug 19, 2007, at 2:45 PM, <michael.dillon at bt.com>  
<michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> No. In fact *YOUR* comment is the red herring. IP address  
> allocations/assignments are not IRUs.

As I clarified in my note to Paul, I was proposing creating "Address  
IRUs" to allow for something to be bought and sold without getting  
into discussions about 'ownership' which I feel are a waste of time.

>> 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.

?

The fact that you received a legacy assignment makes you a hoarder?

> Because these legacy addresses are not registered, we don't even  
> know who these players are.

?

% whois -h whois.arin.net 18.0.0.0
% whois -h whois.arin.net 45.0.0.0
...

etc.

> The legacy holders are hiding in the shadows relying on vague  
> threats of legal action.

I'm not sure what benefit you derive by demonizing legacy address  
space holders.

> 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.

Historically, the US government has tended to favor markets over  
centralized planning and "from each according to ability, to each  
according to need".  However, I have some skepticism that the US  
government would consider stepping into this mess, at least overtly.

>> 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.

If IPv6 does not change the routing system, why do you believe ISPs  
will stop announcing more specifics for traffic engineering purposes?

<looking into my crystal ball>
Because IPv6 does not change the routing system _and_ because people  
do not see any particular value in switching to IPv6 if the get  
locked into a provider due to the cost of renumbering, you'll see a  
proliferation of PI allocations.  Further, as people become more  
dependent on IPv6-addressed Internet services at their home and  
businesses, it is likely they will be less tolerant of Internet  
service disruptions, hence are more likely to multihome.  The  
combination of these will cause the routing system to experience  
significantly increased rates of growth.
</looking into my crystal ball>

Regards,
-drc