[arin-ppml] On whether morality can be the lone argument against a transfer market

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> 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? 

This has now descended into the ridiculous.

It is not up to ARIN, or the network operator community,
or society, or the government, to preserve the market for
IPv4 data communication services. We've had a good run, but
obsolence was built into it from the very beginning. When
it is done, it is done and we all need to move on.

Some businesses will continue to find a niche market with
IPv4 for many years, and they are welcome to it. 

> 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.

When IPv4 is exhausted, new entrants can still get into the 
Internet business using IPv6. In fact, they may well have an
advantage over previous entrants in that they don't have all
the IPv4 baggage built into their systems and their processes.

People didn't moan about the death of IPX, DECNET and NETBEUI,
and suggest that we needed to take extraordinary measures to
preserve the use of those outdated protocols. We just moved 
on. Now it's time to say good-bye to IPv4 and plan for an
IPv6 future.

If the lack of IPv4 addresses materially damages someone's
business, two years from now, I can't imagine a judge awarding
then damages against ARIN. However I can imagine a judge throwing
them out of court on their ear with nothing to show for it.

--Michael Dillon