[arin-ppml] Can a personal property approach ever transition into multi-stakeholder, private sector led, bottom-up policy development model?
jcurran at arin.net
Thu Apr 28 17:49:30 EDT 2011
On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> On 4/28/2011 1:05 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> ... does the
>> community decide that the presence of parties without contracts yet
>> with resources means that they should operate eternally outside the
> If your position is that a shift to IPv6 will never happen, then
> the legacy position that they are going to remain "outside the wall"
> stays relevant.
> But if your point of view is that an IPv6 transition is inevitable,
> then it is inevitable that the legacy holders adopting an "outside
> the wall" approach are going to be marginalized - as are LRSA
> Secondly, how much of a disincentive does a permanent transfer market
> in IPv4 create towards migration to IPv6?
> It is one thing to use the transfer market to free up old abandoned
> IPv4 resources so that the laggards that are suddenly waking up to
> the reality of IPv4 depletion can get breathing room to migrate to IPv6
> But it is another to use it to create a permanent, ongoing method of
> keeping IPv4 resources alive.
You indicate that it's not a problem for legacy resources to be
outside the system (as long as the IPv6 transition is inevitable)
but to be clear, if it is the case that legacy resources are truly
outside the system, then by definition no policy constraint is even
possible on their transfer...
Wouldn't that condition itself create a permanent, ongoing method of
keeping IPv4 alive? Or somehow does the abundance of policy-free
legacy address space not impact IPv6 transition, so its existence
"outside the wall" doesn't stay relevant for long??
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML