[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 93: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size - Revised

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> One of the fastest ways to erode 
> that support is to let the barrier ossify, creating a 
> permanent caste of privileged insiders vs. everyone else.

I think that this has already happened and a couple of symptoms are
the fact that PPML does not have much representation from decision
makers, and the changed policy development process that gives
the Advisory Council an enlarged role. The AC doesn't see a lot
of truly new blood, probably because the set of ISPs who are 
engaged in ARIN membership activity or PPML discussion, doesn't
change a whole lot. The ones that are ignoring us today, have
been ignoring us for a long time.

> You're now suggesting that, regardless of my concerns, 
> there's no point in sharing them in this internal forum 
> because "we" have no real influence over how things turn out, 
> including the disposition of policies that might exacerbate 
> or meliorate the looming transition challenges. By my actions 
> I am demonstrating that I disagree, so I can only hope that 
> you're wrong about this. 

Sometimes by raising an issue like this, people take various
actions, and the situation changes. Often it doesn't, but for
the level of effort involved, it is worth a try. And if you
really care about this, I think you need to try and get your
message out by other means than PPML to cover all your bases.

> 	And that is the elephant in room number 1. New entrants
> 	will not be able to beg, borrow or buy any IPv4 addresses
> 	until IPv6 is widely deployed.
> 
> Again, for the sake of all of "us" -- and everyone else -- I 
> hope you're mistaken.

Runout means there ain't any more of the stuff. It's all gone,
either in use or on someone's storeroom shelf waiting to be
used. Even if ARIN policy mandates JIT and demands that
everyone clear their storeroom shelves, ARIN can't enforce
such a policy, and nobody is going to jump to comply.

The only way to free up the supply is for some people to get
enough IPv6 in commercial production that they feel the risk
to themselves of giving up IPv4 addresses, is very very low.
I think that in most cases that will involve a service transition
whereby customers getting IPv4 service are upgraded en-masse
to IPv6. The ones who object will not be able to go elsewhere
and get IPv4 access. And a percentage of the IPv4 addresses 
recovered will be kept for some high-margin services that still
need growing IPv4 networks (probably private network services).
In that scenarion, a network operator could see a very low risk
to returning IPv4 blocks to ARIN or the market.

> Once 
> transfers have been institutionalized, the market will be a 
> permanent reality for us -- regardless of whether there are a 
> million transactions or zero transactions, i.e., regardless 
> of whether it "promotes liquidity" (its intended effect) or 
> it has the opposite effect (which you and I seem to agree is 
> more likely). 

I disagree that a market can exist without liquidity which
requires a steady stream of transactions and reasonably 
stable prices.

--Michael Dillon