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

[George, Wes E [NTK]]

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Warren Johnson
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:29 AM
To: tvest at eyeconomics.com; 'ARIN PPML'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

<snip>

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".

[WEG] Conspiracy theories aside, this is really simplistic. It's not like the only barrier to entry for a new cable internet company is the (un)availability of IPv4 addresses. There are plenty of other ways to play that system to prevent new entries - franchise agreements, lobbying, net neutrality, actual capital costs, take your pick.
Plus, they have a few words for behavior like this - collusion or antitrust or monopolistic, choose your favorite. If you can prove it, there are some regulators that would like to talk to you. Otherwise, let's keep the speculation and railing against your perceived big, bad "cartel" to a minimum, shall we?


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.

[WEG] As has been said elsewhere in this thread, those (non-technical, executive or financial people) who might drive that decision are not even thinking along those lines right now. It's not a matter of being cynical or paranoid, or optimistic or naïve - they are simply not smart enough to be evil in that way, because they don't understand the intricacies of the situation, IF they even know the difference between IPv4 and IPv6. They are thinking in terms of, "how can I delay our investment in this IPv6 thing as long as possible because it's cash out the door for which I can't see an incremental benefit in revenue?" The only thing that is combating *that* delay tactic is technical people like me spreading FUD by citing potential lost revenue for customers who leave us because we can't offer IPv6, and inability to service existing customers when we run out of IPv4 addresses.
At my own company, we are well on our way to having IPv6 rolled out, and my aim is to have it out there long before anyone realizes that we could have done something different to somehow screw the community and raise the theoretical value of our IPv4 space, something that today is barely even seen as an asset by our beancounters.

And let's be realistic here, the reason that those companies have large IP allocations is that they have been doing something that qualifies as a justified use of addresses under ARIN policy, and their business model expects them to continue growing if they are successful. They have IPv6 plans because they're going to be in bad shape *when* they run out of IPv4. It's not in their economic best interest to drag their feet on IPv4 if it means that IPv6 is harder for them to use because it isn't widely deployed, and therefore they are interfering with their primary business because their users aren't happy or they can't sell to any new ones. No amount of driving up the theoretical value of IPv4 assets will compensate for no longer having a customer base.

Thanks
Wes George

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.