[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoFRe: NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF
mksmith at adhost.com
Fri Mar 7 10:58:01 EST 2008
> Michael Smith wrote:
>> 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.
> they would have to. black helicopters are extremely expensive,
> especially the invisible ones.
> the bogeyperson play, whether the bogeyperson is the igf, the itu, the
> evil legacy holders, or whatever is getting pretty childish and
> and i now severely discount anyone who tries to play it as a
> threat. i
> suspect i will like the bogeypeople about as well as the folk here.
> there are good apples in every barrel. and if they think a bit
> differently, then it will be an opportunity for me to learn a
> view of the world, always a good thing.
No tin foil hats here. I am not an economist and I'm not a lawyer and
it seems a lot of these discussions should include a lot more of
both. There will probably be a lot of different markets and models
and competing theories as to what type of resource IPv4 is and, thus,
what model it's scarcity will follow.
>> it would seem the policy is attempting to put ARIN in the position of
>> being an arbiter of quite a few thing things it hasn't taken on
>> before, e.g., "fairness" (fair to whom?), "availability" (for whom?),
>> "unnecessary deaggregation" (from whose perspective), etc. I might
>> suggest there are many, many mines in that particular field and that
>> ARIN is not necessarily in the best position to blaze a path there.
> from listening to some economic grown-ups early this week, one of the
> take-aways was that these are not simple issues and even the
> language we
> seem to be using is a far from productive. we amateur regulators
> are in
> way way over our heads, and thrashing is not gonna make us float any
> better. what it will likely do is bring in the professionals, and i
> starting to look forward to that as preferable to all this.
Is the recommendation then to; 1) hold fast with our existing
policies, 2) pare down what we have, or 3) who cares because, as you
say, it's just a matter of time before the professionals get
involved? Serious question. I tend to opt for number 2, although the
safe bet might be "do nothing" because we're having limited success
More information about the ARIN-PPML