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

[tvest at eyeconomics.com]

Thanks Warren.

However, to repeat something I've said here many times before, I  
personally don't that anything so cynical as this is going on.
Doubtless there are a few parties who are looking forward to becoming  
(and remaining) the exclusive brokers of the world's few remaining  
usable IP addresses, but I think the majority of people (esp.  
participants in this list / policy process) are just doing what they  
always do, what their job descriptions and careers and personal  
expertise mandates that they do, i.e., plan ahead for potential  
problems and potential opportunities as much as possible given the  
time and budget constraints that everyone faces.

People aren't "evil" now, nor are they going to become evil when IPv4  
runs out -- I don't think so anyway. In the end the exhaustion of IPv4  
is a certainty, and nothing that any hypothetical speculator or  
aspiring would-be monopolist could do, or not do, will change that  
fact. The problem is that once IPv4 ceases to be available through the  
current mechanism, the normal, prudential, professional decision  
making calculus of commercial network operators will inevitably,  
unavoidably shift to accommodate that fact. At that point, it won't  
matter who wanted or really didn't want to be a speculator or  
monopolist. At that point, every IPv4 holder will become an IPv4  
broker, active or passive, whether they like it or not. At that point  
the uncertainties and commercial pressures that have resulted in the  
current level of IPv6 deployment are only going to become more acute.

As the old saying goes, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
In this case, however, making lemonade is not the only option; one  
could also cause all of the other sources of potable liquids to become  
unavailable indefinitely.

Even the nicest commercial lemonade vendor might have a tough time  
resisting that option.

TV

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Warren Johnson wrote:

> 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.
>
>