[arin-ppml] On whether morality can be the lone argument against a transfer market (was Re: 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses)

[David Williamson]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:40:13AM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> It seems to me that legitimate social needs are better served
> by deploying IPv6 instead of spending increasing amounts of money
> on band-aid solutions to keep the IPv4 Internet functioning. We
> know that things cannot go on as they are. We can choose to waste
> money avoiding the inevitable or "you can rock out to it" and invest
> your money in IPv6.

You are probably right on this point, but good stewardship does not
involve simply abandoning all responsibility for IPv4 resources once we
run out.  If the community wants good record keeping, ARIN should
remain involved until such time that IPv4 is more or less irrelevant.
If that means regulating a market for a short period of time, let's do
that.  It may not be the most efficient use of resources, but it may
also be the most effective form of stewardship for this set of number
resources.  I'd much prefer a concerted effort to deploy and transition
to IPv6, but I suspect the timeline is long enough for that work such
that IPv4 will still matter, even when the number space is fully
consumed.  That will then force the use of "band-aids".  C'est la vie.

-David