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

[Warren Johnson]

I agree completely.  For the last six months I have discussed and debated
privately with individuals about what I consider the probable situation once
IPv4 allocation requests can no longer be met. The situation we are facing
is horrible at best.  We're running out of IPv4 addresses and the world is
not even remotely situated to start using IPv6.  


Let us consider the not-so-meager issue of critical mass.  Consider the
unlikely near-term scenario that the world is 80% onto ipv6.  So I'm running
a website and I am only on iPv6.  That precludes 20% of the internet from
getting to my website.  Am I willing to pay $20 or $30 a month for an IPv4
address so I can capture the last 20%?  If I was a business concern
(majority of websites) I would do it of course.  Add on to that
dual-stacking and you basically have everyone using IPv4 addresses until we
reach ultimate critical mass (95%+ conversion maybe?).  And if we're all on
ipv4 anyway, why bother spending the money on ipv6?

Let us also consider the potential power of the ipv4 cartel.  Right now the
big boys in the USA (ATT, Comcast, Time Warner Cable) are among the largest
non-legacy IP holders.   Officially, these guys all have ipv6 gameplans.
But that is PR in my opinion. I'll tell you why.  Suppose you want to start
a new cable internet company.  You figure you can get 1 million subscribers
so you go to ARIN and you request 1 million IP addresses.  Ooops, sorry none
left.  So you have to use ipv6. Well ipv6 isn't going to cut it because the
world isn't converted over enough yet.  So what happens? You don't start an
internet cable provider company.  Who does that benefit?  Can you imagine
going to the board of directors of COMCAST and telling them "let's go to
ipv6... Sure it'll open comeptition up again but we'll be promoting the well
being of the world".  A  more likely scenario is "Officially, let's have an
ipv6 policy but let's not really push ipv6 because ipv4 gives us a virtual
monopoly on this market, stiffles competition and makes us more powerful and
rich".  

Here is something everyone needs to consider VERY CAREFULLY:

The current ipv4 stakeholders have an economic incentive to block or delay
the transition because it drives up the value of their IPv4 holdings.


Good-bye IPv6, it was nice knowing you.





-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of tvest at eyeconomics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:14 PM
To: ARIN PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern



>>> Are you in favor of changing anything at all or can you think of no 
>>> better course of action than to continue exactly as is now?
>>>
>>
>>
>> IMO, it's time now to think about what we do *beyond* the end of the 
>> free pool when IPv4 addressing policy changes to a zero-sum game.
>> Where giving one org new addresses means taking them from someone 
>> else.
>> The address market strategy might work. Ought to work. But we should 
>> probably make some contingency plans.
>>
>
> Ration, Reclaim, Return, Reuse.
>
> Those are the alternatives to transfers based on market principles.  
> I greatly prefer the market which is why I advocated for it, but 
> policy for what to do with reclaimed space after depletion is still 
> needed and any approach to it that doesnt consist of giving it all to 
> whoever can show need will smack of rationing.
>
> And in the strictest sense of the word they are correct, it is 
> rationing. However supply and demand markets are also a form of 
> rationing, so the word in and of itself does not carry automatic 
> negative connotations.
>
> 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.

Is anyone else experiencing any cognitive dissonance here?

A. No clear community consensus in favor of mitigating the impact of
IPv4 runout; many concerns raised about the fairness of depriving current
IPv4 holders of anything less than the max. IPv4 that they can justify
between now and runout.

B. No significant likelihood of anything close to IPv6 substitutability in
the foreseeable future; zero probability before
IPv4 runout.

C. No apparent acknowledgement of what this implies for anyone/ everything
who might need -- and be able to justify -- "usable" IP addresses of any
kind after IPv4 runout.

D.

***

IMO, this combination suggests that it would be prudent to anticipate  
that the "worst case scenario" as described above is also the highest  
probability scenario, by a wide margin.

It's still not too late for some version of prior planning...

TV



_______________________________________________
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.