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

[Milton L Mueller]

Tom:
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how your theory that "IPv4
transfer markets will give incumbents unbreakable long term market
power" squares with the fact that ETNO, the organization of telecom
incumbents in Europe, has come out strongly against IPv4 address
transfer markets.** 

And explain to me again how the absence of a market guarantees
"transitional resources for all new entrants?" I thought it just meant
the damn things ran out and no one got them. 

--MM

**When the .net TLD was up for renewal, the OECD recommended auctioning
it off. Some people objected that such a procedure would mean that .net
would surely be re-assigned to VeriSign because "it had the most money."
Then, VeriSign came out publicly with a news release strongly opposing
auctions and insisting that only a beauty contest oriented around
"stability and security" could possibly assign .net to the right
operator. And what do you know, a few months later .net was reassigned
to VeriSign, because of its "importance to the security of the Internet
infrastructure..." 

Want other examples like this? They exist.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of Tom Vest
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:23 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transferpolicy:
> whythetriggerdate?
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> Thanks for the question.
> For the most part, the answer was anticipated by Paul.
> If a policy like this gets approved, and the reserved pool is large
> enough to last long enough so that no one -- no active IPv4-based
> operator or outside speculator -- could even conceive of a time
> horizon over which exploitation of the asymmetry/bottleneck
> opportunity might be profitable, then perhaps this won't be a problem.
> 
> For that, the reserved pool would have to be big enough, at least, to
> accommodate transitional resources for all new entrants, assuming the
> fastest plausible rate of new entry, for the longest conceivable
> transition to de-facto full IPv4-IPv6 substitutability -- the point
> when everything important is transparently accessible by IPv6-only
> networks.
> 
> To begin estimating that quantity, I could derive the historical new
> entrant rate for the RIPE region, because I can distinguish the
> initial allocations from the subsequent allocations -- but I would
> have to defer to somebody else for the ARIN, et al rates...
> 
> In either case, what would count as a plausible new entry rate for the
> next (x)  years, relative to the historical rates -- what is the
> biggest bottleneck likely to be (address resources, routing capacity,
> transport facilities, etc.)? And what's the largest plausible (x)
> until de-facto substitutability is achieved, given (at least) the
> strategic considerations above?
> 
> TV
> 
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 info at arin.net if you experience any issues.