[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[Scott Leibrand]

Tony Hain wrote:

> While I agree there needs to be a mechanism to keep the records straight, it
> is not at all clear that there is any way to impose a historical perspective
> of 'need' onto a trading market. For starters, the measure of 'need' is not
> based on the amount of space, it is on the ability to get that routed.

Not exclusively.  At the low end, what you say (and the example you 
give) is correct.  But most IPs are not used by organizations getting a 
/24 to multihome.  They are being used by actual devices (computers, 
home NAT boxes, whatever) with a single public IP per device.

> Just as now, a site may need a /30, but if routing says that the smallest thing
> that will pass a filter is a /24, then the site will not pass the test
> without inflating their claim to the smallest routable block. If you are
> really going to spend time on designing a market, design a market for
> routing slots, then the addressing market will take care of itself.
>
> Unfortunately, the RIRs are not in the business of routing

Exactly.  I have designed a routing slot market, and I'm sure you've 
designed several (and spent more time on it than I).  That isn't 
sufficient, though, since you and I have no leverage to actually 
implement such a market.

So, given that we can create an IPv4 transfer market, and we can't 
create a routing slot market, I think it behooves us to do the former in 
such a way as to permit the latter to be done later, if and when it's 
needed.  But I think we need to design our IPv4 transfer market in such 
a way as to manage externalities through policy until such a time as 
they can be managed directly through other mechanisms.

> Before spending too much time on an optimal market design, look at the
> winners and losers in each scenario, then look at who has influence over
> which scenario gets picked. When you find the match between those with
> influence and the scenario where they win, you will know which path we are
> on...

That sounds rather fatalistic, but another reading is that all of us 
have a great deal of influence over which scenario gets picked (through 
the public policy process), so we should do our best to pick the best 
one (i.e. the one with the most winners and fewest losers).

-Scott