[ppml] ripe-55/presentations/bush-ipv6-transition.pdf

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>michael.dillon at bt.com
>Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:42 AM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] ripe-55/presentations/bush-ipv6-transition.pdf
>
>
>> I believe that Randy's point is that an open market will 
>> likely result in availability of address blocks to all ISP's, 
>> both large and small, and this might not happen in some of 
>> the possible choices before us.
>
>This debate is ten years too late. Maybe more.
>
>As for IPv6, all ISPs can get a /32 or more if that is not enough.
>And there is no impending shortage of /32s either.
>
>And I still maintain that there is insufficient liquidity for
>an IPv4 market to form.

I agree - and furthermore, there IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OPEN MARKET

A truly open market is one in which there was NO recourse to the
government or courts if someone fails to uphold their end of a
contract - or anything else - because, after all, in an open market,
if someone fails to uphold their end, their reputation will cause the
rest of the players in the market to avoid them, in which case they
will go out of business.

The concept of "open market" is a fiction they use to teach
economic theory to 1st year economics students.  It does not exist
anywhere in the world.  It might have existed 600 years ago in
some feudal manor somewhere but that's it.

ALL governments regulate markets.  Some call it 'interference' of
course.  This is true whether they are dictatorships or communistic
or democracies - they all regulate.  Thus the market isn't really
open.

Thus the question IS NOT a choice between the fiction of a so-called
"open market" and a regulated market.  It is really a question of
"if we are going to have a market, how much are we going to regulate"

>Most IPv4 addresses that have been allocated
>are locked up in networks, and cannot easily be released for resale.
>Releasing IPv4 addresses is not cost-free and buyers would have to 
>pay a hefty premium to get those addresses. This would drive prices
>too high and that, coupled with shrinking supply of IPv4 addresses,
>would result in liquidity collapse if a market did attempt to form.
>

Which is another way of saying that only the largest cash-rich players
could afford to waste the money on chasing scraps of IPv4 here and
there.  In other words - your creating a market as a perk for rich
people, using the flag of "open market"  The US has had a LOT of
experience with this happening in the last 6 years, you would think
most people would have learned to recognize being snookered by now.

Ted