[arin-ppml] New Entrants shut out? (Was: ARIN-2011-5: ... - Last Call

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:22 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is true, unless we embrace a free market.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is a free market with needs-based justification any different from a free
>>> market without it in this respect?
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Owen,
>>
>> Two concerns come to mind. It's 3AM here so i'm sure i'll think of more later:
>>
>> - Needs based justification requires a substantial amount of oversight
>> on our part, it takes a lot of time (and therefore $) to keep track of
>> justification and maintain it in a format that is acceptable to ARIN.
>> Then when we submit a request it is scrutinized, which costs more T+$.
>>
> So, let me get this straight... You think we should abandon needs
> basis not because there is a community benefit, but, because you
> think it's too much trouble for you to comply. Sorry, I find that
> argument far from compelling.
>
>> - Right now my organization is holding 2 x /21. We waited over 4 years
>> to submit our request for the second /21 in order to avoid the
>> aforementioned, and in an attempt to take care of the resources we had
>> been given. We finally caved in and took the second /21 just a few
>> weeks shy of the IANA depletion and now recognize that future
>> allocations are going to become near impossible to find. IPv6 adoption
>> is underway, but unfortunately support and adoption is slow to catch
>> on.
>>
> Good for you on your address conservation efforts. As to the IPv6
> adoption rate, it is definitely accelerating sharply.
>
>> This leaves us rationing space to customers in what amounts to a
>> digital breadline, where customers have to beg for space and we have
>> to debate with them about why they're now paying $10 per month, per IP
>> (it's to discourage people from attempting to justify large
>> assignments and to encourage larger customers to go direct to ARIN)
>> where other companies who managed to "justify" /17 and shorter are
>> freely handing out space. As a practical matter, we would be willing
>> to pay substantially for allocations that we project will be needed in
>> the future. Unfortunately, need based justification leaves us pulling
>> coupons out of our proverbial ration book instead of simply bidding
>> for the space that we're going to need to sustain our business. Keep
>> in mind that my "need" might look like a "want" to ARIN, but that's
>> all in the eye of the beholder.
>>
> In other words, because you didn't plan your address utilization as
> well as your competitors did, you think nobody should have to plan?
>
> Again, this isn't a compelling argument in my opinion. It's really not
> hard to build a justified need acceptable to ARIN if you have an actual
> need. I've done it many times and I've done it for several different
> organizations both as an employee and as a consultant.
>
>> As Americans, when we want or need something and we have the means to
>> obtain it, we go out and buy it. The market determines the price while
>> supply and demand principles ensure that those who wish to make a
>> purchase are able to do so without waiting in line or being told
>> they're going to have to buy something different.
>>
> For widgets, where when the store runs out, you just make more, this
> makes sense. IPv4 addresses aren't widgets. They're a public community
> resource of finite capacity.
>
> There are a number of flaws in your statement here...
>
> 1.      ARIN is more than America. It also includes Canada and 21 Caribbean
>        nations as well as some other parts of the world.
>
> 2.      I consider it a feature and not a bug that IP addresses, being a community
>        commons resource and not property are managed according to community
>        based policies which, to date, have included justified need. I consider
>        the justified need part a good thing.
>
> 3.      Markets are far from perfect. They are the best solution we have to
>        a number of problems, but, unregulated markets have shown time
>        and again that given the opportunity, people will game the system
>        and create and take advantage of arbitrage opportunities.
>
>        Look no further than the current real estate debacle, the savings
>        and loan disasters of  some decades ago, Enron, Tyco, Worldcom,
>        etc. and you can find examples of what I am saying here.
>
>        Further, I don't believe that moving IP addresses from those with
>        justified need to those with more $$ in their pocket will serve
>        the best interests of the community.
>
>        What will happen instead is that a new class of participants which
>        for lack of a better term, I will call speculators, will enter the market
>        and drive prices up artificially. This will not improve liquidity or
>        increase the availability of addresses, it will merely increase the
>        cost of those addresses.
>
> In short, you've done a pretty good job of convincing me that the case
> to abandon needs basis is rather hollow.
>
> Owen
>
>

Owen,

You have to be willing to agree that free markets are more efficient
than planned economies to find my argument compelling. In a free
market, IPv4 will always be available to those in need. In a planned
economy (need-based justification) it will run out, die completely,
and force migration to IPv6. There are many finite resources in the
world that continue to trade in the free market (eg. oil, gold, etc)
and therefore are readily available for purchase despite their finite
nature. Speculators are a temporary nuisance, they can gamble as they
wish but the market will still set the price in the long term.

This leads me to one of two conclusions:

- You support planned economies and do not believe in free markets
-or-
- You intend to see IPv4 die and see the damage it's causing as a
necessary evil.

My "plan" allows for companies to make their own decision to migrate
to IPv6, without anyone at ARIN having to force it upon them.

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions