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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/12/2011 4:15 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Forcing customer to use NAT is not within the scope of ARIN policy
>> and I do not consider the failure or refusal to do so to be a
>> manipulation of need. NAT is a degraded subset of internet access
>> services.
>
> My point is that someone with lots of addresses that they *could*
> free up can still claim they need more fairly easily.
>
>>
>> There are many providers of much smaller size that are equally
>> expert at dealing with ARIN justified need. I do not believe your
>> argument hold water.
>
> They don't have enough money to play as the price approaches
> infinity, however.
>
>> As I said, I think with needs-basis, the value of N tends to be
>> larger than it will be without N.
>
> And I think you're wrong on that point.
>
>>
>>>
>>> One could argue, for instance, that *with* a needs basis Comcast
>>> might end up holding nearly all the space... but without a needs
>>> basis it might be an investment banking firm instead, who'd then
>>> lease the space out to move providers than just Comcast.
>>>
>>
>> I think you have a number of assertions there which are not at all
>> proven:
>>
>> 1.	I think it is unlikely $CABLECO could demonstrate 12 month need
>> for all the addresses on their first go. Other providers and
>> end-users, will therefore be likely able to obtain some fraction of
>> the address space.
>
> Maybe. But a very small number of players with lots of money and
> needs justification will be able to dominate the buy side trivially.
> And very small amounts of gaming turn a /14 of need into a /13 or
> /12, whereas the same amount applied to a tiny request for a /24
> isn't so interesting.
>

I will make one comment on this here.  If there is gaming that will
go on I suggest we look at the example of the US economy from the
15 years prior to 2007.  As we all know there was a lot of financial
gaming.  But in the beginning it started with the large orgs, ie: Enron.
And the economy didn't melt down.  It wasn't until Ma & Pa Kettle
got into the home flipping in the mid 2000's and we had thousands
and thousands of little small fish ALSO gaming that the system
collapsed.

I think as long as the gaming is the large orgs the RIR's will be
able to handle it but once the small ISP's get into the act we will
end up with the dfz routes exploding and the system melting down.

Ted

>
>>
>> 2.	I have no reason to believe that $CABLECO would not be ahead of
>> the investment banking firm in line for the addresses as I suspect
>> $CABLECO generally pays more attention to the goings on at ARIN
>> than does $INVESTMENT_BANK.
>
> One would assume that some of the folks here who have an interest in
> making money by speculating on IPv4 space are planning on having a
> source of cash with which to do that.
>
>>
>> 3.	There is nothing to prove that $INVESTMENT_BANK would not prefer
>> to lease all the addresses to $CABLECO vs. dealing with multiple
>> tenants. In fact, there are many things to suggest that such a
>> model would be highly preferable as it would maintain roughly the
>> same revenue while simultaneously reducing costs which generally is
>> viewed favorably by most of the investment bankers I know.
>
> Unknown, but possible. In fact, $CABLECO might be able to afford an
> exclusive deal. But then this is NO DIFFERENT than $CABLECO going and
> getting that much space itself.. so who cares? In either case your
> doomsday scenario of a few big providers holding most of the space
> happens, and needs justification did nothing to prevent it.
>
> Matthew Kaufman _______________________________________________ PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or
> manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact
> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.