[ppml] Policy Proposal: Decreasing Exponential Rationing of IPv4 IP Addresses

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Dean Anderson
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 10:11 PM
>To: Scott Leibrand
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Decreasing Exponential Rationing of
>IPv4 IP Addresses
>

>often necessary.
>
>For example, I recently saw on the news of water rationing after a flood
>in the UK. The people who get in line first, get their [ration] bottle
>of water first. This continues until the water buffalo [water tank on
>wheels] runs out.  That's unfair to the people at the back of the line.  

This is a false analogy.

First, the people at the end of the line can see how many people are
ahead of them and see that everyone gets 1 ration.  They can see how
big the rations are and estimate how long the line would have to be
to exhaust the water buffalo.  So if the line was long enough then
they wouldn't waste time and energy waiting in line since they would
know there was no chance of getting water.

With IPv4 we don't know how many people are on the waiting list and
how big their allocations are.  So in a waitlist situation there is
no disincentive to attempting to get IPv4  Since you don't know what
is going to happen you might as well try waiting.

The extra waiting just uses up ARIN time and resources.

>hard limit in any case.  Once the ARIN staff realize they have a hard
>limit, they'll naturally look harder at documentation.  This doesn't
>have to be specified.
>

ARIN already looks hard at documentation, it's kind of insulting to 
imply that they don't.

What do you want ARIN staff to do?  Get on an airplane and fly to the
site needing the IP numbering to make a physical verification of all
the systems there?  There's no way they can look harder than they
are already doing without incurring gigantic amounts of time and
resources.

>And if that still doesn't work, we can adjust the policy. However, we
>won't be running out of space for 10 years, so we have some little more
>time to work this out.
>

And in 20 years when IPv4 runout is imminent, people will use your same
logic to justify even sillier restrictions on IPv4 and the Internet will
not yet be switched over.

Are you the guy that likes the doctor to rip the bandage off real quick or
do you like them to pull it slow as they can?  Sounds like you like your
pain stretched out.  Most people don't.  Let's get this thing over and done
with and go on to the next thing.

>
>I don't know about the whole market idea, yet.  A market allocates some
>resources quite effectively (e.g. Oil, Capital, Dry goods), and
>allocates some things quite badly (e.g. Healthcare, Law Enforcement,
>Fire Protection, National Security). I haven't quite decided for myself
>whether IP Addresses are like Oil or are like Healthcare.
>

Market allocation of oil is an inmitigated disaster.  Conservation
is discouraged in some areas - like the United States with it's gas-hogging
SUVs, and Veneswalia where the government subsidizes gas - and encouraged
in other places, like Japan.

>But I can't deny that a market of a sort exists now, and will probably
>exist whether or not you try to impose rules on prohibiting that.  
>Quite obviously, people with money who need IP Addresses can buy the
>ISPs that have already IP Addresses.

Yes, so what?  Not all ISPs are for sale at any price.  And it quickly gets
to the point that buying the ISP is more expensive then just upgrading
your network to IPv6 and proxy servers and suchlike.

Look at AOL.  Everyone on it uses this fugly piece of garbage software
that loads on their machine and literally rapes it - destroys all
existing networking in the system.  Do you think the AOL users know what
is really under the hood that is transporting their Internet connectivity?
Do you think they care?  Think of how many AOL users are out there.

Your coming from the approach that it's a Good Thing to stretch out IPv4.
With the implication that there is something wrong with IPv6.  What?  Why
do we want to delay IPv6 deployment?  What are we waiting for?  Once IPv4
runout happens, Windows Vista deployment will be penetrated enough to
make IPv6 switchover easy enough.

> Like the movie Wall Street, the
>raider can then turn the just-bought resources to their own more
>profitable purposes.  There is almost no way to stop that; because so
>far as ARIN is concerned, nothing has changed. The business pages just
>report ISP X bought ISP Y.  Allowing the sale of IP Address blocks on
>ebay would seem to make little difference.
>

Then if it would make little difference then simply don't allow it and tell
the ISP they have to buy the other ISP.  After all "it makes little
difference"

>Recently, a person on a mailing list that I read, offered the use of his
>legacy /24 in exchange for hosting their server.  I can't see anything
>wrong with that.
>
>On the other hand, IP Address delegations are basically leases from the
>government,

Absolutely not.  What government.  Show cites please,

>and the landlords (the government) can specify that the
>leases either are or aren't transferrable.

Numbers are not property.

>Usually, one wants some
>sensible cause for restrictions---e.g. you can't sell the nuclear
>weapons plant or whatever to just anyone---and so far in the "market"
>discussion, I haven't seen anyone really show the social harm in
>allowing blatant IP Address transferral for money.

It's been discussed.

Allowing IP addressing to become property, which would be a requirement
to permit "sales", allows politics and government to get involved.

So, your competitor ISP makes a big political donation to a senatorial
campaign and a month later you find the government Bureau of IP numbers
has just launched an investigation on your ISP's use of IP numbering
and is legally demanding that you turn over a stack of paperwork that
is going to take you literally 100 man hours to produce - and they
will then spend another 500 hours and the next year arguing with you
with a fine toothed comb.  Oh sure, you haven't violated your contract
and will be exonerated - but they will suck all your time away doing
it which will destroy you anyway.

You want this?

>Addresses much like it treated frequency spectrum: Up for bid to the
>highest bidder, possibly subject to FCC regulation where necessary.
>

Examine the skulduggery behind sales of frequency spectrum to "the
highest bidder" then ponder if radio and TV will be the better for 
having just a handful of deep-pocket companies controlling it all.

>
>If we create a market of IP Addresses, I think an Enron-like debacle is
>all but certain. So, the question for me is this: Is the benefit of a
>market worth the trouble?  Almost certainly there will be trouble.
>Almost certainly some people will go to jail on fraud, criminal
>conspiracy, etc like with Enron etc.  But outside the bad events, I
>think resources might be allocated quite well by a market.

This logic is young and naieve and has no clue how big government and
big business and politics work.

The large ISP's have one thing the small ISPs don't have - deep 
pockets.  If you put IP allocation into the market, the big ISP
will simply use their deep pockets to put the rest of us out of
business.

Every heard the expression, he who has the gold makes the rules?

We don't need this and we don't want it.  And if it ever happens
then the Internet will become as bland as the soft drink market,
where coke and pepsi control virtually all of it, and are so
interchangable that 3/4 of the people couldn't take the pepsi
challenge and tell the difference.  Why do you think pepsi stopped
that marketing campaign?

> The provision consequently ensures that should ARIN "lose" the
>ensuing negotiation or court case, there will be space available.
>

If any future court case like this were to come up the best
thing would be for ARIN to transfer jurisdiction to an RIR outside
of the national court's jurisdiction.  This is how you solve these
things on a global scale.  The court can then complain to the
government and take it up with the United Nations where it belongs
By the time those folks get done with it, it will be a moot issue.

Ted