[arin-ppml] Draft Policy2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Thu Mar 26 13:35:51 EDT 2009


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:23 PM
> To: michael.dillon at bt.com
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy2009-1: TransferPolicy
> (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)
> 
> You conveniently left out my "the IPv4 space it needs to last through a
> transition that is starting too late to be done before runout".

Then complete the transition *before* IPv4 runout.

> Where does a hosted service that needs to deploy more servers to serve
> increased demand from existing IPv4 clients get IPv4 addresses from
> after the runout?

Umm , did you just ask where to get more stuff when there is no more stuff?
The answer is you don't.

> 
> Where does an innovative new service that needs to deploy servers to
> serve customers who are only on the existing IPv4 Internet get IPv4
> addresses from after the runout?

See above.  Shouldn't innovative new services be using ipv6?

> 
> Where does a new ISP that wants to deploy IPv6 to customers with an
> IPv6-IPv4 translation gateway to reach the legacy IPv4 Internet get IPv4
> addresses for the IPv4 side of that translation gateway after the runout?
> 
> The answer is that if there is money to be made in having those
> addresses then acquiring those addresses will be part of the capital
> expenditure required to start or grow one of those businesses. Yes, it
> will cost more than it does now, and so yes there will be business
> models for which that no longer makes sense... but there may very well
> be business models where the cost of getting a few more IPv4 addresses
> to continue growing, high as it might be, is lower than the cost of
> *not* having the addresses.

I see lots of questions describing problems of how to continue to use a
technology that is unavailable.  Face it, IPv4 is a finite resource, when it
runs out it runs out.  

> 
> I have two significant issues with people who are completely opposed to
> a transfer policy:
> 
> 1) The idea that things have worked well so far with the friendly
> cooperative addresses-are-nearly-free model we have now and so we should
> keep things as-is.
> 
> The problem is that the world we must plan for is not the world we
> inhabit today. *There is no "as-is" after the runout.* The world we must
> plan for is one where IPv6 addresses are as available as IPv4 addresses
> are today, but IPv4 addresses are *no longer easy to come by*. And I
> believe that because the transition is starting as late as it is and
> going as slow as it is with an new protocol that is as poorly suited to
> a smooth migration as IPv6 is there *will undoubtedly be a continuing
> need for both existing and new organizations to get a limited number of
> IPv4 addresses*.

So why can't people go back to ARIN and get more IP addresses?  If they are
available for transfer they are available for recycling.  If they cannot be
returned then they can't be transferred either.  

> 
> 2) The idea that if we don't have a transfer policy then transfers won't
> happen.
> 
> Existing entities which need more IPv4 space in order to continue
> operating and/or growing, or new entities which need even small amounts
> of IPv4 space in order to exist at all (imagine, for instance, a new ISP
> serving a previously unserved region which needs IPv4 addresses for that
> side of their IPv6-IPv4 gateway) *will* find a way to get these
> addresses if there is economic value in doing so. They will purchase
> existing entities which have underutilized space, they will ask entities
> with space to spin off subsidiaries or lease address space to them, etc.
> All of this is more legally complicated, and thus more costly in lawyer
> time, than just being able to transfer the address space. That adds an
> unnecessary transaction cost to solving the needs of the entities which
> need IPv4 addresses after the runout, and so that is *even worse* than a
> clean transfer policy would be, as far as increasing the cost to the
> acquiring entity goes.

So we are back to "if it's going to happen anyway we might as well legalize
it" option.  Pshaw, come up with a better argument.

I still maintain that creating an IP market will increase the cost of
internet to the point that it will be unaffordable by many if not most.  You
may be willing to sacrifice that section of society but I am not.  

Go ahead and screw the little guys, the heck with the end users, keep
supporting big business.  It will come back to haunt you.

> 
> 
> Of course there are folks for whom the lack of a clean and simple
> transfer policy is a win: the lawyers who will orchestrate the
> more-complex transfers that will happen anyway, and the people with
> existing IPv4 services who want as big a barrier to new entrants as
> possible.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090326/add7d1b1/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list