[ppml] Markets, pricing, transparency, 2008-2 / 8.3.9

Cliff Bedore cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com
Tue Mar 18 22:13:32 EDT 2008

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Cliff Bedore wrote:
>> Regarding a "market" for IPv4 addresses, I still have not heard any
>> disadvantage to ARIN staying completely out of the market part and 
>> just have a
>> policy that allows one more method of acquiring addresses.
>> As I understand current policy, there are basically two ways to get 
>> addresses
>> 1)  Ask ARIN with appropriate justification
>> 2)  Buy/merge with a company and get the addresses as a part of that
>> transaction (again with some justification to ARIN
>> It seems to me that all that 2008-2 needs to do is add a third method 
>> once the
>> IANA free pool is gone.
>> 3) Party 1 offers to transfer to Party 2 some block of addresses.  
>> Party 1
>> has the right to offer and Party 2 justifies the right to receive the
>> addresses.  No market, no ARIN involvement with SEC, just ARIN 
>> approving use
>> of a block of addresses.
> What you're describing here seems pretty similar to the APNIC and RIPE 
> proposals.  Personally I feel that those proposals go a bit too far, 
> in that they will encourage excessive deaggregation and impose 
> externality costs on everyone holding a full routing table.  
> Specifically, the cost of acquiring IPv4 addresses will encourage 
> transferees to acquire just enough addresses to meet their immediate 
> needs, and transferors will be able to arbitrarily subdivide their 
> netblocks to meet that demand.  This will likely result in a large and 
> unnecessary uptick in the rate at which new routes are added to the 
> DFZ.  Without some sort of backpressure (a market in routing slots) I 
> think that some form of deaggregation restriction, such as that 
> proposed in 2008-2, is needed to constrain that.

I'm not saying ARIN can't use some judgement in the approval process to 
help with deaggregation but remember, there may not be a lot of "big" 
blocks available in this time frame.  I think there could be problems 
with routing tables but there will also be problems with routing tables 
if people go to v6.  Also think about the fact that if all the legacy 
/24s not currently visible are sold, there will be a terrible impact on 
the routing table.
>> Why is this not a simple way to handle the end of life address 
>> management of
>> v4 addresses?  ARIN gets their fees just like now so they remain 
>> viable but
>> have no interaction with the "market" and its associated problems.
> Another option, that you may be alluding to, would be to have ARIN do 
> the transfer policy, but leave the listing services to others (i.e. 
> eBay).  That would certainly be one viable option.  Personally I 
> prefer to do both: have ARIN develop an optional listing service, 
> making it voluntary so that organizations can engage in private party 
> transactions  or use another listing service (eBay if they want).

Yes.  If that wasn't clear, (I expounded more in a prior email) ARIN 
will do all the transfer policy and approvals but would just stay out of 
the market.  I think ARIN will be better off staying out of the listing 
business.  There are many outlets for that type of activity.


> -Scott

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list