[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy: whythetriggerdate?

[Owen DeLong]

Tom,
	Absent the recent policy proposal to create a reservation
for IPv6 Transitional Technologies in the ARIN IPv4 free pool,
I would agree with you.  However, wouldn't that policy mitigate
what you are saying below? (assuming it gets adopted)

Owen

On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Tom Vest wrote:

> There is also the matter of asymmetrical dependence and bargaining
> power (detailed ad nauseam last week).
>
> Unless something changes, on the day after free pool exhaustion and
> every day thereafter, "incumbent" IPv4-based networks will be able to
> unilaterally decide whether/when they want to be transparently
> interoperable with native IPv6 networks, and they will be able to
> unilaterally act to make that possible, e.g., by going dual-stack,
> renumbering, or operating a symmetrical 6/4 gateway.
>
> Unless something changes, on the day after free pool exhaustion and
> every day thereafter, new IPv6-only networks will need to interoperate
> with the universe of incumbent IPv4 networks. However, they will NOT
> be able to unilaterally act to make that possible as long as that
> requires at least some IPv4, which at that point will only available
> from those incumbent networks, or from "pure speculators".
>
> That asymmetry is what will drive the price of IPv4 up and up, and
> that increasing profit potential and bargaining power -- which is just
> an artifact of the lingering IPv4 bottleneck between new IPv6 networks
> and everything still accessible only via IPv4 -- is what will
> incentivize incumbent IPv4 networks/IPv4 dealers to delay their own
> shift to transparent interoperability for as long as possible.
>
> Aspiring to be the last-mover will be the only rational strategy in
> the environment that an IPv4 resource transfer market will create.
>
> But maybe rationality will take a holiday :-\
>
> TV
>
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>
>> Don't forget the fact that IPv6 is not yet a perfect or mature
>> service.
>> Delaying IPv6 implementation will avoid the costs involved with
>> development and debugging of local networks while letting others do
>> the
>> dirty work.  I am not advocating this, just recognizing a reality.
>> The
>> forward thinking administrators that want to make a difference in the
>> world will jump in and get it done, the profit driven enterprises  
>> will
>> sit back and wait until everything is easy or unavoidable.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On
>> Behalf Of Lee Dilkie
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 6:44 AM
>> To: michael.dillon at bt.com
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy:
>> whythetriggerdate?
>>
>>
>> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>>> As with many other technologies, there is a substantial last-mover
>>>> advantage to going dual-stack or single-v6.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On what do you base this opinion?
>>>
>>> --Michael Dillon
>>>
>>>
>> Moore's Law, one would think. Delaying purchase of networking
>> equipment
>> will yield better performance for lower cost.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net  
> if you experience any issues.