[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Owen DeLong]

On May 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/12/2011 2:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 11, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> There ARE other addresses available, I have heard that you are aware of IPv6.
>>> 
>> Sigh... Even I am not going to attempt to claim that IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are
>> interchangeable equivalents.
>> 
> 
> I keep hearing arguments that the price of IPv4 addresses won't go infinitely high because at some price it'll be more cost-effective to switch to IPv6 than to try to keep shuffling the IPv4 deck chairs.
> 

You haven't heard that argument from me and I'm not convinced it is accurate.

> If that is true, then IPv4 and IPv6 addresses *are* economically interchangeable, just as coal is an imperfect substitute for natural gas when it comes to generating electric power... at some point the cost of one or the other gets high enough that the cost of switching is lower.
> 

Since it may not be true... 

With coal vs. CNG, you have a single party able to make the switch deterministically for themselves.
With IPv4 vs. IPv6, you have a myriad of third-party dependencies in your ability to switch from
one to the other and have it actually work out. This significantly changes the underlying assumptions.

>>> And with my policy or without my policy, addresses are bound to flow to the highest bidder.
>> If the highest bidder is limited to only those addresses he can justify, then the addresses he
>> couldn't justify flow to the next highest bidder. If the highest bidder is not so limited, then, the
>> addresses likely flow to a very small number of very well capitalized entities to the extreme
>> detriment of smaller entities.
> 
> The addresses will likely flow to a very small number of very well capitalized entities in any event... the only question is what type of entity they are. In Mike's world they flow to folks who do things like lease address space and sell blocks at high prices to people who really need them... in your world they flow to the top N ISPs that are experts at showing need, aren't constrained by the 3-month rules, and are growing sufficiently to justify anything.
> 

I think the results are actually the top N ISPs in both cases eventually. The difference is that Mike's resultant value
of N tends to be much smaller than mine.

> In Mike's world, you can get service from whoever you want but the price of space is high... in your world the price of (what is now provider-assigned) space is high and your choice of transit providers is limited.
> 

I really don't see how you come to these conclusions. My argument is that under Mike's proposed policy,
your choice of providers would become more limited.

> In theory both of these options are bad enough that people switch to IPv6.
> 

Let's hope.

Owen