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

Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
Sat Apr 30 13:12:53 EDT 2011

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> You have to be willing to agree that free markets are more efficient
>>>> than planned economies to find my argument compelling. In a free
> That is great for economies.   But efficient IP addressing is not about
> creating an economy or a market or distributing IP addresses to the
> most profitable endeavors.
> Economies/Markets measure a different kind of efficiency than
> value to the community.
>> respect. Additionally, if speculators drive up prices this will
>> encourage more supply to enter the market (resource holders seeing an
>> opportunity to take profit) which will drive the price back down
>> (hence my argument that the effect of speculation is temporary).
> "Temporarily" speculatively high prices is the opposite of efficient use of IP
> addresses. In addition, this creates instability in the availability
> of IP addresses.
> And potentially, instability of the internet, when providers are encouraged to
> turn off services, because it's more lucrative to sell the IPs than
> continue their service.
> It would be small comfort than "on average"   (after a sufficient
> number of decades),
> the pricing of IP addresses will be economically efficient.
>> Granting the assumption that not everyone on PPML subscribes to
>> laissez faire principles, some items for the community to consider:
> Laissez faire principals have their place.
> Laissez faire principals do not have adequate answers
> for efficient distribution of IP addresse
>> - Should ARIN reserve a pool for non-commercial entities (non-profits,
>> education, etc)
> The existence of a need for such a thing would be proof that Laissez faire
> principals  don't  work;  since  "reserving addresses"  to not apply the
> principals to -- is basically admission those principals are only good
> for some portion of the community,  and they are at expense of others.
> If  non-profits have problems getting IP addresses, and profits don't have
> problems, for financial reasons or otherwise,   then, due to that poor outcome,
> it would mean that inappropriate choice of policy deesign principals
> had been applied....
>> - Should some controls be put in place to discourage speculation
> --
> -JH


At the moment we have a system that favors small players at the
expense of commerce. It also fails to create economic incentives to
migrate to IPv6. Note that C-Squad execs speak dollars, not value to
the community.

So long as we continue to squeeze blood out of the IPv4 turnip,
companies will continue to delay IPv6. The choices become the Lyon
strategy of letting the market set the price and encourage natural
migration, or the Owen strategy of taking IPv4 off life support.

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list