[ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents

[Randy Bush]

[ i do not disagree (strongly) with much of your message, but i really
can not let the following go ]

> Considering that "fair and equitable distribution" is what we think we
> have now

some may think that.  the screwees we barred from entry at the lower end
sure do not, and have not for a decade.  have we not read their pain on
nanog and this list?

what we have is a highly jury rigged distribution based on how market
incumbents thought the game should be played.  if we don't think it is
jury rigged, why is policy so long and complex and why do we keep making
up more?

let me repeat

> look how long a community of vested incumbents has kept barriers to
> entry at the low end.  cathy screamed at me in public when i suggested
> small allocations in the first arin denver meeting; when we had an
> actual victim there whose business was being severely hampered by our
> bottom up policies.  now, when the end is in sight, we are finally
> talking about sharing the last orts here in the restaurant at the end of
> the universe.  how magnanimous of us.
> 
> to be clear, the bald-faced trade we made was protecting the incumbents'
> router capital costs by making it hard for folk at the low end.

and, at the other end, 75% of the address space has gone to ten entities
in the last couple of years.  and take another look at the internal
statistics, <http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html#ipv4org>.

perhaps we should understand that some people might not consider this
"fair and equitable distribution?"

and i do not blame arin hostmasters, management, ...  they do a great
and often thankless job.  we, the community did it [ab]using arin's
philosophy of thinking with our bottoms up.

and i share the blame for this.

randy