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

[Mike Burns]

 Good Morning Owen,
>
>>> 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.
>
> No, I am saying the deployment of LSN is likely to happen, and when it 
> does an uncertain number of ip addresses may be freed up to supply the 
> transfer market.
>

>Either your proposal makes a difference here, or, your above statement 
>isn't relevant to the discussion. If your
>proposal makes a difference in this regard (encouraging LSN), that is a 
>negative IMHO.

I was replying to your thread with Matthew wherein you claimed to have proof 
of the size of the transfer pool, which proof, combined with the known and 
stable demand, led you to a 4 year timeframe.
I don't see any impact on my proposal, though.


>
>>> 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.
>
> I am saying that your "proof" of the size of the transfer pool is not 
> valid because you assume 100% efficiency in routed space.

>I actually don't assume that at all, but, that's OK. There may be other 
>assumptions built in. I would argue that increasing
>NAT does not increase the efficiency of address utilization, but, merely 
>increases the number of users on a single
>address while decreasing the utility of those addresses. The net efficiency 
>remains roughly the same if one considers
>he utility factor as part of the efficiency equation.

>So, again, either your proposal will make a difference here (encouraging 
>NAT) or it won't. If it doesn't, there's
>not a lot of relevance to your statement.

No, my proposal doesn't impact, my statment was in reply to your 
establishing with any accuracy the size of the transfer pool.

>
>
>>> 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
>
> Owen, any single entity is limited to a /12. I trust the ARIN staff to be 
> able to determine whether the entity is a sham company, and even by the 
> size of your limited pool, a /12 can't corner the market. So maybe we can 
> at least temper the fear that a speculator would enter into a 4 minute 
> market.
>

>It doesn't have to be a sham company, it can simply be a subsidiary. For 
>example, last year, a certain
>cable provider got a /9. They would have no problem whatsoever creating 8 
>regional operating
>companies each of whom needed a /12 in my estimation.

>The /12 limit is both absurd and utterly useless in having the effect you 
>claim. All it would really
>do is penalize large providers (note, I'm seeking fairness, not penalties 
>for either side) and
>increase disaggregation.

>Owen

How does it penalize anybody but the people you have expressed such fear of, 
the speculators and market cornerers?
If the large company can show need, it can continue to get addresses above 
and beyond a /12.
The number is designed to allow for almost all entities to engage in fluid 
transactions without requiring ARIN oversight, but would prevent anybody 
from "buying up all the addresses", as has been very commonly expressed as a 
negative aspect to my proposal.
Since my expressed intent for the /12 is to prevent these kinds of 
activities, but it has been mentioned that it could be gamed through the 
creation of sham companies (or subsidiaries) I am open to any suggestions to 
the phrasing of that limit, but my assumption is that we would rely on ARIN 
staff interpretation of the facts in the light of the proposal's expressed 
intent.

Regards,
Mike