[arin-ppml] DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2011-1: GLOBALLY COORDINATEDTRANSFER POLICY (Legecy space)

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 13, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> I don't think for one second that high priced IPv4 will increase the rate
>> of IPv6 adoption. Indeed, it may well take vital money away from IPv6
>> projects in order to cover the costs of "vital" projects that need IPv4 space.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> <scratching head>
> 
> let me see if i understand this argument. 
> 
> The Mueller theory:
> -----------------------
> At T1, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $500. Rational actor A picks buying more v4.
> At T2, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $500,000. Rational actor A picks upgrading to v6.
> 
> The DeLong theory
> -----------------------
> At T1, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $500. Rational actor A picks upgrading to v6 because...um, ARIN wants him to.
> At T2, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $500,000. Rational actor A now picks buying more v4, and finds the money to pay for it by not upgrading to v6. 
> 
> Does that make sense to anyone? 

Of course not. However, since you 1: Mis-stated the DeLong theory and 2: Included a number of incorrect assumptions
in your version of both theories, it's not surprising that your incorrect assumptions led to incorrect conclusions.

Let me attempt to explain it a  bit more accurately:

The Mueller theory:
--------------------------
At T1, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $1000. However, more IPv4 addresses will
	allow T1's users to reach the still-only-on-IPv4 parts of the internet while upgrading to IPv6 without IPv4 addresses
	will leave T1's users without such access, or, with severely degraded access to those parts of the internet that are
	still IPv4-only. Rational actor picks buying more v4.
At T2, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $2000. Same constraints on the usefulness
	of the IPv4 addresses apply. "Rational" actor ignores this disparity of usefulness and chooses the cheap
	connectivity. T2 loses his customers as a result and goes bankrupt. The price of IPv4 addresses drops as
	T2s IP addresses are now available cheap in a bankruptcy fire sale.

The DeLong theory:
--------------------------
At T1, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $1000. However, more IPv4 addresses will
	allow T1's users to reach the still-only-on-IPv4 parts of the internet while upgrading to IPv6 without IPv4 addresses
	will leave T1's users without such access, or, with severely degraded access to those parts of the internet that are
	still IPv4-only. Rational actor picks buying more v4. Further, since T1 sees the writing on the walls, he also spends
	$1,000 to upgrade his network to IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack so that his customers can reach both the IPv4 and the IPv6
	capable parts of the internet.
At T2, upgrading network to IPv6 costs $1000, more ipv4 addresses cost $2000. Same constraints on the usefulness
	of the IPv4 addresses apply. "Rational" actor recognizes that keeping his customer has a value in excess of
	the price disparity and purchases the more expensive IPv4 addresses. Unfortunately, this unexpected additional
	cost of IPv4 addresses means that the $1000 he was planning on spending to get to IPv6 has now been
	diverted into the additional cost of IPv4 and there is no money to upgrade to IPv6. The provider is now trapped
	in a very difficult position where it will become ever-increasingly expensive to grow his network with IPv4,
	but he desperately needs capital to deploy IPv6.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Owen