[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

[Joe Maimon]

William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>   
>> Only in a worst case scenario where neither transfers or returns are meeting
>> even a portions of needs and ipv6 is not obviating ipv4 need should any
>> attention be given to reclaimation of non-abandoned resources.
>>     
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Then before we talk about what a draconian address recovery policy
> looks like, perhaps we should consider the circumstances under which
> such a policy should be employed.
>
> My thought is that a darp should be activated when all of the
> following conditions are met:
>
> 1. IANA has allocated the last /8 to an RIR
> 2. ARIN is unable to meet a qualified request for a /18 or larger.
> 3. The BoT determines that blocks of ARIN-managed IP addresses of /24
> and larger are not generally available for purchase via the transfer
> market for less than $10/address.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>   
I really dont know what price per address would be considered reasonable 
per target market for ipv4 and at which point in time it will go up or 
down. Already, reputable companies are charging more for static blocks 
of addresses, at a significant markup from their ARIN prices (but at 
prices ranging from .5 per address to .001 per address thats easily 
achievable).

We should consider some other factors, such as whether or not the 
returns and reclaims, which are fairly significant even if trickles in 
the bucket of current demand, will dry up after depletion and resulting 
value changes for ipv4, whether IPv6 adoption is actually measurably 
increasing and how the political and public winds are blowing.

And fee changes should also be a factor considered well before darp. But 
that is not policy.

Really hoping that things never get as far as the darrrrp and I doubt 
that people would knowingly chart that direction.

Joe