[ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:49 PM
> To: Stephen Sprunk
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Sprunk 
> <stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
> > Thus spake <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> 
> >  > Paradoxically, in addition to harming the people who are
> >  > unable to buy addresses,
> >
> >  They are no more harmed than they would be if exhaustion hit and 
> > there were  no market.  This is a red herring.
> >
> I disagree for two reasons; one is based on who is being 
> harmed, under 'standard' exhaustion organizations are harmed 
> based on their IPv6 adoption, in a market exhaustion 
> scenario, those with less money are harmed at the expense of 
> those with more resources available.

> The second is that 
> those that are harmed in a market scenario are likely harmed 
> worse because the companies with more resources are 
> prolonging their IPv4 usage which inherently delays 
> ubiquitous IPv6, which in turn puts an organization w/o IPv4 
> in a foul position.

I sometimes wonder if an ulterior motive of many of the proponents
of indefinitely staying the execution of IPv4, and keeping it
viable for a great many years after it should have been laid to
rest, is to create a situation where the organizations w/o IPv4
are forced to contract with an organization that HAS IPv4 and get
a delegation from it.  Perhaps they are dreaming of one day extracting
a living like a lamprey does - by bleeding cash away from those
ISP's by renting them IPv4 for an indefinite period at very high rates
of money?

Perhaps if the proponents of an "IPv4 market" would care to state what
they think the expected price of an IPv4 block would go for, say, 3
years after IPv4 runout, might this be illuminating?

Ted