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

[Warren Johnson]

[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?


[WDJ] You're right, there are more things to consider HOWEVER the inability
to get Ips is still the inability to get Ips.  I can lobby, spend money,
sign franchise agreements, bribe local officials to get my infrastructure
built etc, but I still can't materialize a million IPv4 ip addresses out of
thin air for virtually no cost as is done today.  If IP addresses wind up
trading at $200 per IP, that puts a million of them at 200,000,000. I wonder
if that winds up being cost prohibitive?  Large monopolies hardly worry
about being large monopolies.  Microsoft has had a virtual lock on the Pc
for almost 3 decades now. The governments of the world have been chasing
them for almost two of those decades but they're still doing great.  Yeah,
maybe someday Microsoft will get what's coming to it but it seems to me that
by the time they do, they've made so much money and influenced so many
people with their monopoly behavior that it was worth it to them.  


[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.

[WDJ] Assuming you're right and the CTO of the organization is a moron and
doesn't know IPv4 is coming and hasn't filled the rest of the C-level people
in on the potential benefit of being an OA (Original Allocator) the point is
still moot.  When IANA hands out the last /8s, it's going to be worldwide
news and they're going to catch on really quickly.  Furthermore, it's not
really about number of subscribers, it's about number of dollars in the bank
account.  I reckon they don't care how many customers (within reason) it
takes to make the maximum return on investment.  Making customers happy and
giving them services they need is only as important as the profit is high.  


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.

[WDJ] Sometimes you don't have to expand to make more money. Sometimes you
just raise the price.