[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: whythetriggerdate?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Robert E. Seastrom
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:25 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy: 
> whythetriggerdate?
> 
> And for a counterexample, I started as quite anti-market, 
> hoping that runout with absolutely no contingency plan for 
> transfer of addresses would speed v6 adoption.  I'm still 
> concerned that creating a market will dull perceptions about 
> the finality of run-out; we emphatically do not want to 
> promulgate the belief that it will be business mostly as 
> usual except with higher prices.
> 
> On the other hand, the market exists right now, it's just 
> unregulated and shadowy because it is prohibited by policy.  
> Acknowledging the existence of the market and putting a 
> modicum of regulation on it is certainly in the interest of 
> the buyers, and likely in the interest of the sellers as 
> well, since fair pricing can be established on more than an 
> anecdotal basis.
> 

This was the same argument that was used by 29 states in the
early '70s in the US to lower the drinking age to 18.  However,
the regulation did not result in any safer or better collegate
drinking, and drunk driving accidents continued to rise, as a
result those states ended up raising the drinking age back
to 21 by 1988. (the National Minimum Drinking age of 1984 law
also helped, of course)

According to MADD the nationwide proportion of 16-20 year
old drivers involved in fatal crashes dropped 33% following
1988, when the last state raised it's age.

It is a given that making something illegal isn't going to
stop it from happening.  BUT, the idea that making IPv4 
private-party to private-party address transfers sanctioned will
not affect the IPv6 uptake rate is simply preposterous.

For the large orgs, there's not going to be enough IPv4 for sale
to meet their needs, so this discussion isn't even on their
radar.  But it does matter to the smaller orgs.  If you make 
these transfers sanctioned, there WILL be some smaller orgs who
put off IPv6 migration plans, and purchase more IPv4.

Robert, you need to forget about this bankrupt "they are going to
do it so we might as well regulate them" argument and decide if
stretching out IPv4 past IPv4 runout is a good thing for the
Internet or not.  If you decide it is a good thing, then be
in favor of this proposal for that reason - that's a respectable
position to take.  But, if you believe that it is not a good thing,
then for heaven's sake, be a man and stand on your principles.


Ted