[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Jan 1 15:45:04 EST 2009


In a message written on Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 12:34:55PM -0500, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> The status quo you defend so doggedly will and must end. You are
> not opposing markets you are opposing the fact of scarcity, which
> is (as the Canute story suggests) a futile exercise.

One of the reasons I keep repeating myself is because clearly my
position has not been understood by individuals such as yourself,
as your statement clearly indicates.

The status quo ends, however, when it does I have a markedly different
view of the world than you do.  I believe that:

  - IPv6 is deployed fairly rapidly, and with limited pain.
  - There will be very few holders of IPv4 space willing to part with
    their space at any price a black/white/grey market will offer.

I also take a long term view; at this point IPv4 is walking dead.
We can argue about if it lasts 5, 10, or 25 more years but almost
everyone concedes an eventual move to IPv6.  Thus I am concerned
that we have an allocation system for IPv6 that continues to function
for the next 100 years.  If that goal requires some short term pain
in IPv4 I believe that's an acceptable trade off.  I also believe
that creating a system that accelerates the move to IPv6 will in
fact result in a more stable, cheaper, faster expanding global
Internet.

I have put forth back of the napkin calculations on the market
multiple times before in this form.  I have never ONCE seen a
pro-market supporter offer up any numbers of any kind.  As someone
who likes to make decisions that are backed up by good data, science
and reasoning I find that lack of input productive.

I get the economics, IPv4 will become more scarce, therefor it
becomes more valuable, thus it is more likely to be traded on a
white/grey/black market.  I also get that no regulation/rule/contractual
provision works 100% of the time.  These seem to be the only "facts"
that the pro-market forces put forward, and I'm willing to stipulate
to them.

The fact is, all this talk about IPv4 and markets is taking focus
off the real issue, transitioning to IPv6.  Much of the IPv6 policy
still assumes you have IPv4 as well, and we need to fix that.  Much
of the IPv6 policy was predicated on an ivory tower view of the
Internet, and now that we have some operational experience we should
fix that.  We're going to get so caught up on allowing an extremely
small number of people to legally profiteer off IPv4, and extend
the life of IPv4 by 12-24 months that we'll totally blow having
IPv6 ready for when people need it; making the problem worse.

And lastly, I've suggested an alternative method where by IPv4 space
can be redistributed.  One which I think puts ARIN in a much better
position with respect to the long term stability of ARIN and IPv6
allocations.  To suggest I'm opposing a market when I put forth a
proposal that creates one is rather silly.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090101/14fa2778/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list