[arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18, 2009

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Schnizlein
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:00 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 
> and Mar 18,2009
> 
> Thank you for the clear and strong statement, about which I 
> have some questions.
> 
> On 2009Mar31, at 12:03 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> > A transfer system will inexorably raise the cost of doing 
> business on 
> > the internet.
> 
> I can see that the cost of deploying more IPv4 would likely 
> rise with scarcity.  How would this affect anyone else?
> 

Post IPv4 runout, the only new assignable IPv4 will be "dirty"
meaning already broken up into smaller blocks.  An org needing
a /18 could satisfy this with, for example, 2 non-contiguous
/19's, or a /19 and 2 /20's, and so on.  All discontiguous.
Further, the existence of multiple "brokers" greatly reduces
the possibility of a single entity (ie: ARIN) from gathering
together multiple small blocks and coalescing adjacent ones into
larger blocks, or "trading" a larger contiguous block for
smaller non-adjacent ones.

As a result you have far more rapid growth of BGP advertisements
on the Internet, meaning everyone needs to buy more ram for their
routers a lot sooner and retire working gear a lot sooner.

Also, the mere existence of a transfer market means ISP's
are much more likely to consider the runout date to be highly
elastic, rather than a freight train speeding down on them - this
removes incentive to move to IPv6 and creates an incentive to
spend more and more money pushing off the date they have to
start converting over.  Keep in mind the longer the transition
takes, the longer we all have to dual-stack and the more complex
that problem troubleshooting becomes, and more labor spent on
it.

This also chips away at the authority of the RIR as it creates
the false impression by the "purchasers" that IP addresses are
"property" and thus once they buy them, they can do what they
want with them and do not have to justify need - once more, this
increases the incentive to get portable numbers and decreases
the incentive to get numbers from your upstream, increasing
BGP routing advertisements.

What are you going to tell the guy who spent $500 on a /24 and
has an ISP willing to advertise it for him, that ARIN is going
to rule he's in violation of the NRPM and they are going to take
that /24 and give it to someone else as part of a larger aggregate?
He will file a lawsuit and your going to clog the court system
with these "buzzing flies" lawsuits.

Ted