[arin-ppml] On whether morality can be the lone argument against a transfer market
sleibrand at internap.com
Wed Oct 1 11:53:08 EDT 2008
You argue that the main benefit of the last system was that it allowed new
entrants into the market. How do you propose that we allow new entrants
to the market after IPv4 exhaustion? I would think that a transfer policy
would help new entrants, as they would still be able to get their own PI
space, through transfer, rather than being stuck with PA space from
whatever provider still has addresses to rent.
The only other approaches I've seen any support for are rationing
policies, whereby a block of addresses is reserved to allow new entrants
to get at least a little bit of space. I think such a policy is a good
idea, but it only helps the smallest new entrants, or those who choose not
to compete for customers requiring IPv4 space. Therefore, I think a
transfer policy is also needed to allow new entrants to acquire IPv4 space
and compete in that market.
Tom Vest wrote:
> 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
> other approaches.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML