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

Thu Jun 26 08:44:53 EDT 2008

On Jun 25, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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.**

Hi Milton,

You're making an incorrect assumption here. I was not using the term  
"incumbents" pejoratively, or as code or shorthand for telcos.
The use was purely descriptive, and denoted only those individuals/ 
institutions that will be holding IPv4 address space when the free  
pool of IPv4 address space is exhausted.

The fact that traditional "incumbents", i.e., national facilities- 
based telecom carriers, advocate a continuation of existing allocation  
policies until the day of exhaustion speaks for itself -- but if more  
explanation is required Michael Dillon and others have clearly  
articulated some of the reasoning for preferring this approach on this  
list and elsewhere.

> 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.

I will explain that to you as soon as have cleared up the question of  
when you stopped beating your wife.*

Of course the mere "absence of a market" does not guarantee anything,  
just as the mere "approval of a transfer proposal" does not guarantee  
anything, including the availability of transitional resources, or  
even a "market". Nothing guarantees anything, we're just trying to  
improve the odds of a happy outcome here.

TV

*disclaimer for those not familiar, this is not a personal insult/ 
accusation but rather a common example in logic/legal argument about  
the futility/disutility of  responding to a (literally) "mis-leading"  
loaded question.

> --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.