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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 19, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Owen, jumping in here,
> 
>> On 5/19/2011 2:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The number of buyers with need will
>>>> exceed the available address space.
>> 
>>> 1) You can't prove that, and,
> 
>>> I can, actually. The available IPv4 space that could end up on a transfer market is bounded
>>> by those addresses not currently in use. As such, the rather limited supply is well known.
> 
> Except you don't have any information on how efficiently those addresses are used.
> It could very well be that a great deal more efficiency can be found, freeing up more than the unrouted address space.

Unlikely, but, I suppose there is a remote possibility.

> Like those unfortunate souls who will find themselves behind CGN will likely enrich their ISP, who can sell as many addresses into the market as he can without losing too many customers who demand non-CGN access.

So you are saying that your proposal will increase the deployment of LSN... Yet another reason to oppose.

> Or even the deployment of plain old NAT could free up addresses which are currnently being  advertised now for sale later.
> 

So you are saying that your proposal will increase the deployment of NAT... Yet another reason to oppose.

>> The pool of buyers is known to be monotonically increasing and ARIN's average issuance
>> of ~190,000 IPv4 /24s each year by ARIN would indicate an annual market demand for 25%
>> of the maximum possible pool from which to develop such a market (roughly 12 /8s)
> 
>> Therefore, even if we assume that all possible addresses will come on the market with
>> your policy, the supply will be gone in 4 years or less. Any churn beyond that would leave
>> a need-gap behind unless it is the result of successful abandonment of IPv4. At the point
>> where organizations can begin successful abandonment of IPv4 altogether, the market
>> will invariably collapse anyway.
> 
> And you believe this and still think there is a danger from speculators? When the market is at most 4 years in duration and then subject to collapse due to IPv6?
> 

Yes. I think that if you open it up to speculation, the duration becomes much closer to 4 minutes
than 4 years.

Owen