[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[David Conrad]

Geoff,

On Mar 5, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> Some folk may be of the view that IPv4 + NATs is a long term viable  
> proposition, and may believe that in such a long term scenario the  
> value of IPv4 addresses may rise steadily over time.

...
> Others may be of the view that one of the major elements in an IPv6  
> transition is the incentive to stop deploying IPv4 and that may well  
> be based in an escalating value of IPv4 addresses, which would  
> increasingly provide economic incentives for entities to deploy IPv6  
> as their mainstream technology base with minimal IPv4 translation  
> services.
...
> Personally, I would tend to the first view - that escalating price  
> in an Ipv4 address market would rapidly drive the industry into IPv6.

I think you meant that you tend to the second view. :-)

I would agree this scenario is far preferable to the first.  What  
actually comes about is, of course, hard to determine at this point in  
time.  I personally believe that policies should be explicitly  
oriented towards promotion of the second view as one outcome of  
transfers could be a market encouraging increased address space  
utilization efficiency via NATs, which could reduce the pressure for  
IPv6 deployment.

> I'd hardly characterize the APNIC policy proposal in such dramatic  
> terms.

I thought the motto of RIR policy discussions was characterized by the  
following quote:

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless  
interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull  
day."
    -- Calvin & Hobbes

:-)

> The APNIC model as it stands leaves the operation of any associated  
> market to the industry players themselves.

I understand and in general agree with this approach.

However, the implication of minimal constraint/regulation is that it  
gives actors free reign to pursue what they believe to be their best  
interests without regard to the more global implications of their  
actions.  For example, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong),  
nothing in APNIC policy proposal deters (say) NIRs from efforts to  
corner the market for their members nor would it appear to discourage  
a raiding party from Sweden in Viking Long Boats to become an APNIC  
member and start acquiring address space for use elsewhere.

To be clear, I am not necessarily saying this will happen, rather I  
was describing what I saw as extremes in the spectrum of the current  
proposals.

Regards,
-drc