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

[Milton L Mueller]

T1 and T2 were supposed to be time periods in my description, and the actor was "A".
Owen turned T1 into an actor, thereby making the example incoherent, as you note.
--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew at matthew.at]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:41 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2011-1: GLOBALLY
> COORDINATEDTRANSFER POLICY (Legecy space)
> 
> 
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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?
> 
> No, because I can't tell if "T2" is a participant who isn't "T1" or a time later
> than "T1"
> 
> Matthew Kaufman