[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Roger Marquis]

Benson Schliesser
> That said, we can learn from all of these comparisons. Spectrum: the FCC
> uses a market approach (monetary value/cost) to make sure that spectrum is
> allocated efficiently.

Problem is radio frequency is a physically limited spectrum, where the
need for restrictions is natural.  IP exhaustion is anything but natural.
It is an artificial shortage imposed on the community by those who stand
to profit.  It is artificial because the barriers to adoption are well
known, basically NAT 64 and 66 standards.  These bridges from IPv4 to
IPv6 have been blocked by the most specious, inconsistent, and fabricated
arguments imaginable.  We know NAT works because it is nearly ubiquitous
in the IPv4 world.  We know there is no good security alternative to NAT,
no good multi-homing alternative to NAT, and no business case for GUA.
Despite this market intelligence a very small minority of vocal
"interests", who claim to be full time network engineers yet seem to have
many hours a day to post technically ridiculous criticisms of NAT, have
been able to prevent the adoption of NAT64 and 66.  This, and only this,
is why we are facing address exhaustion.  If NAT 64 and 66 had been
implemented years ago we would not even be discussing it today.

> For IP we should strive to create a fair field of play, but that doesn't
> oblige us to artificially de-value address resources. Accepting a thesis
> that IP addresses are "private assets" might actually benefit the community
> more than the alternative.

That is the line IP squatters would have us believe, but there's no
business case other than profitability to speculators and squatters.
Nothing new here that Enron didn't try 10 years ago.  Claims of benefit
from an address shortage can only be sustained by ignoring the lessons of
history.

Roger Marquis