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

[Joe Maimon]

Warren Johnson wrote:
>  And if we're all on
> ipv4 anyway, why bother spending the money on ipv6?

These potential problems and scenarios have all been discussed in one 
form or another and many people have differing opinions on which are 
most likely.

> 
> 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.  

True.

>  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".  

Speculation.

I tend to believe that things are the way they are because there wasnt 
any much better way to do things and that people are proceeding with 
good faith and intentions, but with their own interests in the forefront.

It is definitely possible that various board level management of the 
timing of all this is concerned with the bottom line more than we think 
they should be.

However, we should not jump to conclusions and accusations. There are 
bound to be plenty of those from people less familiar with the state of 
things.

> 
> 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.
> 

I think it is more important to consider that a bad reputation of 
address management and consumption, deserved or not is not going to be 
helpful down the near term road.

There is still time to make an effort to correct any injustices or 
inequities perceived or real, trumped up or accurate, mistaken or not.

Joe