[arin-ppml] On whether morality can be the lone argument against a transfer market (was Re: 2008-6: EmergencyTransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses)
tvest at pch.net
Wed Oct 1 10:07:40 EDT 2008
This thread is a complete red herring.
The question is not whether or not transfers are good or nice, but
rather whether they'll work, and whether they'll be sustainable, and
at what cost to everyone, participants and non-participants alike.
Many people thought that CIDR, aggregation, and route filtering -- the
elements that made the RIR system "work" (i.e., rationalize demand for
address resources and routing system capacity) -- were evil, because
they reinforced customer-level "provider lock-in." That fact probably
made it a bit easier for the largest operators at the time to sign
onto the idea of RIRs in the first place. However, arguably, this
"immoral" feature was counterbalanced by the fact that the system
preserved openness at the routing service provider (including self-
provider) level. So incumbents got something out of the deal, but so
did everyone else -- or at least everyone else who was willing to buy
a couple of routers and hire an engineer. That openness helped to
assure that even those who didn't want to opt into the routing game
would benefit indirectly from the continuous churn and competition
that new entry *alone* permits.
Set aside the question of whether transfer markets will work or not.
Ignore doubts about their technical sustainability. Even if the
rosiest scenarios on these two counts come true, transfer markets will
still undermine the interests of both "customers" and all future
aspiring new entrants -- both of whom can look forward to a future
with all of the downsides of PA and then some, and none of the benefits.
For that reason alone, the community should be seriously considering
More information about the ARIN-PPML