[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy

[Paul Vixie]

> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> ...
> To me, this assumes facts not in evidence.
> ...
> I am not convinced any of those three things are true.  Therefore, I am not
> convinced that the choices are the only ones available to us.

most of ipv4 is legacy, and much of that isn't globally routed right now, and
i think that the pro-market position in light of those facts is, a lot of that
space is going to come into use, and the community needs to provide a paper
trail for same.  that paper trail would include LRSA and qualifying transfers,
since voluntary recycling appears to be less likely than black marketeering,
and black marketeering would significantly pollute and devalue the records we
see by "whois" and probably lead to more deaggregation than a transfer system.

the anti-market position in light of those facts appears to be, ipv4
consumption is driven by large allocations, which are speeding up over time,
and cannot be indefinitely met by ipv4 no matter how much of the legacy space
is recycled or remarketed, since we'll either face explosive deaggregation or
still have to do double- and triple-NAT and application growth will slow down.

most of us are, in the above terms, both pro-market and anti-market.  there's
no way forward without some kind of miracle, such as 464 or LISP or similar.
and while it may be irresponsible to incorporate a "necessary but unknown
miracle" into one's plans, that's where the reduction leads in this case.  and
this is what bolsters the case for "stop prolonging the life of ipv4, we might
all hate the costs and complexities of ipv6, but the sooner we all bite that
bullet the better off we will all be."  or even "dead or alive, you're coming
with me" (oops, "market or no market, we're all going to be using ipv6 soon.")