[arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund

[John Schnizlein]

It seems to me that the "bounty" a network operator could realize by  
converting to IPv6 in order to release a block of IPv4 addresses is  
exactly what would hasten deployment of IPv6.  Because this "bounty"  
will obviously go to zero when IPv6 is widely enough deployed that  
nobody needs any more IPv4 addresses, such an operator knows that  
holding off too long ruins the chance for any bounty at all.

What would be even more beneficial is that a network operator trying  
to decide if a new deployment should use IPv4 or IPv6 would see  
(discouraging) variable and increasing costs of using IPv4 that it  
could compare to the (hopefully decreasing) costs of deploying IPv6.

Part of the problem with deployment of IPv6 is that the cost of the  
transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is hidden - or visible only to the far- 
sighted who realize that it will be necessary when the number of hosts  
on the Internet doubles again, but not now.

John

On 2009Apr13, at 5:26 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
>> ...
>>
>> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular
>> transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I
>> think the community overall wants/needs some assurance that
>> the system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal
>> transparency is probably the best way to allow the community
>> to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
>
> I just see no point to publicizing the figure, and a lot
> of time-wasting and diverting-from-IPv6-focus happening if
> the figure is published.
>
> ...
>
> We need to be encouraging people to go to IPv6.  Publicizing the
> current "bounty" for free IPv4 just draws attention to
> IPv4 at the expense of IPv6.  If members of the community think
> that ARIN's non-publically-disclosed pricing is unfair, then
> I have a simple solution for them - don't buy IPv4.