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

[Roger Marquis]

Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> And we most certainly do need a way to free up some additional
> IPv4 space

Perhaps a rhetorical question but how would you propose getting back the
legacy /8s, doled out in the dozens back in the day.  Virtually none of the
owners, organizations like Cisco and HP, really need more than any other
company their size (i.e., a few /24s).  Then there are all the legacy
owners of /16s who aren't using a fraction of their addresses.  It is not
even difficult to identify the squatters thanks to a strong correlation
with the date of their arin whois record.

Personally I think the outcome is inevitable, as soon as a few politically
savvy businesses start feeling the budget pinch from IPv4 resale pump and
dumpers, their lobbyists will be all over the US Congress.  Congressional
aids will read this lists's archives, and all the plotting over IP resale
values, and laws will be passed accordingly.

> as it has been clear for over a year now that the transition was
> started too late by almost everyone.

I don't know about that.  The transition was started in time but has been
stonewalled by those planning to monetize their IP real-estate.  The
stonewalling has been in the form of continued FUD regarding IPv6 NAT.  It
has also been slowed by short-sighted implementors who fail to see that
there is no value in IPv6 until a v6 node can access 100% of the IPv4
Internet as well.

The bridge from v4 to v6 has only two real obstacles: 1) a standardized
version of IPv6 NAT, and 2) a 1:1 mapping of legacy v4 routing to v6.  But
you won't hear much about these two roadblocks in this forum due to the
signal to noise ratio, skewed by planning (sometimes salivating) over the
coming v4 resale market.

IMO,
Roger Marquis