[ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed

Steve Bertrand steveb at eagle.ca
Mon Apr 21 19:45:42 EDT 2008

Like someone else earlier had said that they were not qualified or
educated enough to give an opinion, I think any opinion is better than
none at all.

I don't know the ramifications totally either way; but nobody else
does either (IMHO).

>>> They are no more harmed than they would be if exhaustion hit and
>>> there were  no market.  This is a red herring.

I agree.

>> I disagree for two reasons;

> 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?

I get the impression that Ted is raising some very legitimate points
and intelligent questions (that can't be answered with fact) while
leaving the thinking up to everyone else.

Personally, I think a transfer policy is a complete back-step and
should be avoided. From my little knowledge of the ramifications, it
smells to me that it is an attempt to *try* to manage a market that
will exist whether we like it or not. Like many have argued, there is
no real raw data to prove the 'what ifs' no matter what side of the
fence one is on. Either way...its still delaying the inevitable no
matter the stance.

If someone wants to try to artificially benefit from holding onto a
resource indefinitely in hopes of profiting in the future, let them do

This entire transfer policy to me sounds very much like an attempt to
regulate a contraband market...a war on *insert_something_here*.
Furthering that, in order to work, I would think that extreme
co-operation needs to be had across all RIR's, not just ARIN.

If the efforts that everyone is putting into trying to regulate the
'bikeshed' aspects of the IPv4 gray market was put into IPv6, then
those who gambled on IPv4 holdings have lost already.

Again, I am not overly educated in this regard, and I am not a good
political person, but I think no matter what is said, everyone should
at least speak how they feel about the issue.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list