[arin-ppml] Would paid transfers still be needed with IPv4-IPv6 translation?

[Scott Leibrand]

Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> Suppose the RIRs implement policy to provide for existing and new
> entrants, along the lines of prop-062 (use of final /8), or 2008-5
> (Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment), or some other
> proposals that provides three to five years of IPv4 allocations from the
> final /8 given to each Registry. 
> 
> Also suppose the IETF found it possible to create standards of some IPv4
> to IPv6 translation mechanisms to provide communications between the
> protocols. 
> 
> Some might be quick to dismiss this as impossible or improbable, but for
> the sake of discussion, do you think the Internet would still need paid
> transfers? 

My answer would be a qualified yes.  No matter how good the translation 
mechanism is, it won't satisfy all need for IPv4 addresses during the 
transition.  (For example, translation may work very well for clients, but 
servers probably need a certain number of unique IPv4 addresses.)  In such 
a scenario, new market entrants would still need their own IPv4 addresses 
in order to provide Internet service to content providers.  Without a 
transfer policy, such new ISPs would have to settle for PA space (from an 
ISP or from some legacy holder who gets into the IP-renting business). 
That wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would be a good deal 
messier, IMO, than a straight transfer of space.

-Scott