[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoFRe: NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[Michael Smith]

> 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  
> boring,
> 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  
> different
> 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  
> am
> 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  
"doing something."

Regards,

Mike