[arin-ppml] Creating a market for IPv4 address space inabsenceof routing table entry market
JOHN at egh.com
Wed Jun 18 14:54:24 EDT 2008
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > I don't think anyone who advocates a market in address space
> > > thinks that implies ownership of address space. It implies
> > > ownership of the right to use address space (i.e. a license
> > > to use that unique set of integers, in the limited context of
> > > the IPv4 Internet.)
> > If so, then that would be a MAJOR change to the set of rights wich
> > currently come with an ARIN allocation. Currently you have a right
> > to use those integers in devices which support the Internet Protocol
> > version 4. This holds whether or not you connect the set of devices
> > to the Internet or not. If you have a need for uniqueness, you can
> > apply to ARIN and get addresses. Many companies have done so, often
> > to use in VPNs or private internetworks (also called extranets) in
> > which companies connect to their trading partners.
> > --Michael Dillon
> Your response is a non sequiter. He said that A implies B. You replied that
> would be a major change because we have always felt that C was also true.
> However, there is no inconsistency between B and C. In fact, C is
> independent of B.
> Perhaps you took his "A implies only B" to mean that he was claiming your
> particular superset of B was false. But he did no such thing. He simply said
> it wasn't implied by A. However, that takes no position on its truth or
> In this case:
> A = A market for address space
> B = Ownership of a right to use address space only on the Internet
> C = Assignment includes right to use address space in non-Internet contexts
> In case it's not clear, he argued that a market in address space implies
> that you can own the right to use address space in the limited context of
> the IPv4 Internet (A implies or requires just B). He said nothing about use
> of address space in any other context. He didn't say you couldn't get it or
> didn't have it, he just said that only ownership of a right to use in the
> limited context of the Internet is required for a market in address space.
> And, in fact, when someone wants to "buy IP addresses", what they want is
> the exclusive right to use those IP addresses on the public Internet. If
> this right can be had and transferred, then there can be a market in address
That's what I meant in my followup, if it was a little incoherent.
Someone else has mail me privately (not sure if it is okay to quote
him directly) that the dispute with my original statement is not that
the rights go beyond what I said, but that there are any rights at
all at stake. He said there are not, but there is an explicit
guarantee of uniqueness. I claim that if this guarantee has any
meaning, then it implies a right. Otherwise it is no guarantee
at all. Maybe the dispute is over the meaning of the word "right"
or license. Or maybe Micheal is claiming that there is a broader
right than I posited, and my other correspondent is claiming
As for extranets, ARIN doesn't grant you the right to use the
allocated (or assigned) addresses in a non-Internet context,
you already have the right to use *any* addresses you and
your trading partners agree to. All that ARIN provides in this
context is a convenient allocation scheme. However, a typical
Internet user does not have any explicit contract or agreement
with the vast majority of other Internet users, so the RIR
guarantee of uniqueness and exclusivity matters.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML