[arin-ppml] Discussion Petition of ARIN-prop-125 Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual-Stack

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Thu Dec 30 15:31:03 EST 2010

On 12/30/2010 12:14 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> |The proposal as-is would also prevent transfers to entities that hadn't
> |deployed IPv6. So there'd be *no* transfer market during this time... except a
> |grey/black one.
> |
> |Matthew Kaufman
> Yes i agree theer would be *no* transfer market during this time...
> except a grey/black one...
> but I am not sure what your point is with this comment.
I was replying to Frank Bulk saying "It's possible that if prop 125 
passed that the prices for transferred IPv4 space would go up earlier 
than if we waited for ARIN's free pool to evaporate.  Those with IPv4 
space to sell would price in the fact that IPv4-only shops can't get 
more IPv4 space from ARIN's free pool"

I was simply noting that if there was a transfer market at this time, 
this proposal negatively impacts it rather than accelerating it.

> Right now all IPv4 transferes require justified need.  As ARIN does still
> fulfill requests with justified need, there should be *no* transfer
> market.
> The only people who are attempting to transfer space on the grey/black
> market are those who can't actually meet ARIN's requirements for justified
> need.
One would think. Though if this proposal were to pass as-is, it would 
become harder for an IPv4-only entity to meet those requirements. I 
would guess that the number of grey/black market transfers would go up 
in such a situation.
> Are you argueing that we should have a liberal transfer market (no
> justified need) like the APNIC region?
I wasn't arguing either way.
> Or are you trying to make some
> other point?
I was simply trying to reply to the situation supposed by Frank.

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list