[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

Michael Smith mksmith at adhost.com
Fri Mar 7 00:09:18 EST 2008

Hello Scott:

On Mar 6, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

>> I think whois provides a good benchmark. Most people seem to think  
>> that
>> the quality of whois is fairly low. Most would say that data quality
>> (completeness + accuracy) is substantially higher among current RSA
>> signatories, but low among legacy resource holders (with a few
>> giant/obvious exceptions). Setting aside for a moment the "actual
>> facts", why do people believe this? Assuming that the facts largely  
>> bear
>> this out, I would reckon that the gap between actual and "perfect"  
>> data
>> quality, and the delta between RSA signatories and legacies provides
>> some indication of the *max upper threshold* of compliance that one
>> might realistically expect. After all, when the cost of compliance  
>> is so
>> very low, but many people still decline to go along, then how much  
>> lower
>> is it going to be when the stakes are very very high?
> I think that a legitimate transfer market will actually result in a
> large improvement in the quality of records reflected in whois.  In
> order for an address holder to transfer addresses, they'll first  
> need to
> demonstrate to ARIN that they are the legitimate holder of those
> addresses (through documentation of their relationship to the original
> recipient listed in whois), and then sign an RSA or legacy RSA.  I
> anticipate that this will prompt a large number of resource holders to
> update out-of-date contact information, and will prompt a number of
> legacy holders to sign legacy RSAs.
I think that the legacy holders with a sense of the Internet  
"community' have already returned, or are in the process of actively  
returning their unused space.  I don't think we should even worry  
about the rest of those folks because I can't think of a single reason  
it is in their best interests to return their space, given the present  
state of ARIN policy.

>> I'll wrap by simply stating that even if all of the above proves to  
>> be
>> wrong or fixable, and the market works "perfectly" but effectively
>> prices aspiring new entrants out of the industry, then I believe that
>> would be grounds enough to reject it.
> I don't anticipate that a market will price out new entrants.  In  
> fact,
> I favor the transfer policy proposal precisely because it provides an
> avenue for new and growing networks who need IPv4 space to get it  
> after
> free pool exhaustion.
> In my opinion, the supply curve for IPv4 addresses will be somewhat
> elastic, meaning that as the price goes up many IPv4 address holders
> will begin to free up IPv4 addresses and make them available.  Demand
> will be elastic as well (quantity demanded will go down as the price
> increases), but I think supply will be more elastic than demand simply
> because there are so many netblocks out there already, so address
> conservation efforts will have more effect on freeing up supply to be
> transferred than on reducing the demands for new space.

If a consortium is formed of the holder of legacy space, in  
particular, then supply will be regulated by the consortium, not by  
market forces.  Then, if they're smart, they will regulate prices to  
the highest level the market will bear and sell them off a bit at a  
time.  Think OPEC.

The only way to make any of this a moot point is to make IPv4  
irrelevant because IPv6 is fully embraced by the community.  One way  
or the other, ARIN will lose control of the IPv4 space, whether by  
natural deprecation in favor of IPv6 or by continuous end-runs around  
ARIN policy through legal and illegal means.  Unless ARIN wants to  
spend a large portion of its budget in legal battles my guess is there  
is not very much we can do.

I know that ARIN says that they/we don't support one protocol over  
another, but it seems to me that we spend an inordinate amount of time  
working on policies that continue to buttress IPv4 with no comparative  
policies in "support of" IPv6.  If ARIN doesn't support IPv6 then who  
will?  If we don't make the ARIN community believe IPv6 is coming and  
that ARIN is more concerned with promoting IPv6 than trying to breath  
a little extra life into IPv4 then who will?  It seems to me that the  
policy direction seems to be overly concerned with the latter.




More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list