[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-146 Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

On May 6, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> When exhaust happens, even if you have need,  you are going to have to pay
>>> the price required for somebody to sell to you instead of to another person
>>> with need, according to current policy.
>> 
>> or wait inline until ARIN gets some more, or use private addressing,
>> or move to IPv6....
> 
> This is the meat of the issue. Those who wish to restrict ownership or
> transferability of IPv4 are generally advocating migration to IPv6 as
> the end all solution to any IPv4 problem. It most likely is, long
> term, but that does not fix the near term issue of companies that have
> not migrated for various reasons.
> 
You can not and should not infer from my advocacy of IPv6 as
the real solution any idea that I have any desire to inflict additional
pain on those attempting to eek additional life out of IPv4.

That simply is not the case.

In fact, I want to restrict ownership transferability in order to reduce
the amount of pain and increase the efficiency of the utilization of
IPv4 space. Unrestricted transfers allow manipulations and hoarding
of the IPv4 space by parties with commercial interests outside of the
efficient use of IPv4.

> Naturally, your rebuttal will be something to the effect of "their
> fault, not mine," but keep in mind that some of us actually want to
> see IPv4 continue to survive for a period of time for those who do
> rely on it and do not want to incur the substantial costs to upgrade
> their networks or do not wish to fight through early compatibility
> issues. Let's refer to this chart:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DiffusionOfInnovation.png . By this
> assertion, ~50% of resource holders are going to be late to adopt and
> will inevitably be hurt by IPv4 policies that are in place today.
> 
I always enjoy when people want to put words in my mouth. Especially
when what they claim I will say is completely contrary to what I would
actually say.

I would love to see IPv4 be viable for decades to come. However,
I also see the reality that that possibility is about as remote as a
rainforest in the middle of Nevada.

You assert that 50% of resource holders will be late and will be hurt
by today's IPv4 policies. Since you don't provide any data or assertions,
I'll arbitrarily say that I would expect 75% of resource holders to be
hurt by more liberalized transfer policies.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion, however.

Speaking of the pain of existing policies is meaningless without the
comparative context of how proposed policy would affect that
pain. I have not seen anything to convince me that more relaxed
transfer policies would reduce pain overall. Every indication is that
it will increase pain for those without financial resources while
providing somewhat better relief for those with financial resources
if everyone is a good actor and there are no manipulations.

I see several potentials for manipulations in a more liberalized
environment, however, and many opportunities for those with
the interest in doing so to inflict tremendous harm on their
smaller competitors through market manipulation. This would
significantly increase the overall pain while failing to effectively
extend the useful life of IPv4 for any but a handful of very large
ISPs.


Owen