[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: why the triggerdate?

[Paul Vixie]

> The IP address trading market has already appeared. It is already regulated
> by the fact that it is an illegitimate black market and that has kept the
> level of activity down to a murmur.
> 
> What makes you think that the proposals for ARIN to tinker directly with
> this market will improve it in any way?

i'm thinking that the murmur could turn into a riot at RIR runout.  the
historical parallel is "prohibition", where laws against selling a certain
kind of commodity strengthened and amplified an existing black market.  i
recognize the imperfection of this comparison, since the scarcity was caused
in that case by the laws themselves, whereas the coming ipv4 shortage is of
natural causes.

> Yes, humans do certain things when shortages arise, but only a fool would
> starve to death when there are an abundance of weeds, tree leaves and grass
> to eat. In the same way, only a fool would let their network starve from a
> lack of IPv4 addresses when there is an abundance of IPv6 addresses free for
> the taking.

that analogy fails since the first companies who go ipv6-only will all die of
starvation since "the internet" from their customers' point of view will be
mostly empty.  the first companies to go dual-stack are doing OK, we're getting
some small first-mover advantage by generating skills and tools, but there is
no first-mover revenue advantage in dual-stack.  the rational individual choice
for most companies has been some mixture of (wait-and-see and/or hoard).  to
the extent that there's revenue in dual-stack, it'll all be there waiting for
the stragglers.

> All the talk of address scarcity is about a mirage, something that has been
> engineered by the IP networking community. There is no real shortage of IPv4
> addresses. There is no real scarcity and never will be. Every network
> operator has a choice to start using IPv6 addresses, or to pretend that they
> do not exist and play the role of someone suffering from scarcity.

michael, if my company was ipv6-only, then we wouldn't be having this
conversation.  i think onlookers know this and know that ipv6 won't help them
in the current fiscal year, but that dual-stack would cost them in the current
fiscal year.

	$ dig +short bt.com in mx
	10 smtp62.intersmtp.com.
	10 smtp63.intersmtp.com.
	10 smtp64.intersmtp.com.
	10 smtpe1.intersmtp.com.
	10 smtp61.intersmtp.com.
	$ dig +short smtp62.intersmtp.com. in aaaa
	$ dig +short smtp63.intersmtp.com. in aaaa
	$ dig +short smtp64.intersmtp.com. in aaaa
	$ dig +short smtpei.intersmtp.com. in aaaa
	$ dig +short smtp6l.intersmtp.com. in aaaa
	$ 

> The fundamental problem that we are wrestling with is one of human
> psychology. It is all about fear of the unknown. Too many people in the IP
> networking industry are so afraid of the unknown IPv6 future that they are
> willing to create a scarcity situation and then suffer through that scarcity
> period.

the rational choice for many is: waiting until there are other ipv6 endpoints
to connect to before adopting dual-stack.  this isn't psychology, but rather
"just business" as randy bush sometimes says.

>           In the end, there is no need for scarcity and no need for
> suffering.  In the end, the suffering will stop when networks start using
> IPv6 in earnest. But why wait 'til spring? Do it now! Let's all get
> beavering away and shift our lumbering networks into the future.

isc.org's network has been dual-stack for years.  what's bt.com's plan?