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

[Mike Burns]

> Unfortunately this may already have happened. One of my techs in a
> conversation
> with a cable tech (low level so take with a little grain of salt) was told
> that the cable company he worked for (changed owners recently so I'm not 
> sure
> who the parent currently is) and comcast have gotten so much IPV4 that 
> there is
> no shortage in V4 addresses and that they had no plans in converting to 
> IPV6.


Recent reports show Centurylink and Level3 have amassed huge holdings:
http://blog.connectedplanetonline.com/unfiltered/2011/05/02/unexpected-benefit-of-recent-telecom-mergers-a-treasure-trove-of-ipv4-addresses/

Maybe it's time to buy stock in these companies?
(And of course HP with 2 /8s!)

I agree that it is worth considering the impact on the deployment of IPv6 
from the concentration of IPv4 addresses in the hands of incumbent network 
operators.
What if you were an investor in a startup and you decided that this was a 
real risk, (that incumbents won't deploy IPv6)  and that IPv4 may be with us 
for far longer than expected?
How would that affect your desire to avoid supply disruptions in the future, 
or severe price rises?
I argue that a rational investor could see this information, decide that 
IPv6 is still way, way off, and come to the conclusion that the best thing 
for him would be to acquire enough IPv4 addresses now to handle not just 
short-term, but long-term growth.
If he finds a seller willing to sell him as many legacy addresses as he 
needs, then his choice under current policy is:

1. Purchase what he wants, ignore the ARIN registry, rely on the purchase 
documents to induce a network operator to route them.
2. Purchase what he can demonstrate a 3-month need for and process the 8.3 
transfer.
3. Purchase what he wants, and attempt to game the ARIN needs requirement.

I argue that there is a real danger of option 1, which reduces Whois 
accuracy.
However, you could argue that if he chooses option 2, address use is more 
efficient, and I would agree with that.
But I would argue back that most businessmen do not operate out of altruism, 
and few would choose option 2 due to future uncertainties of availability 
and price.
(But I can't prove that not a single one would!)

And if there were no needs requirement, I argue he would purchase what he 
wants, regardless of need, but he would want to have the purchase registered 
with ARIN to protect  his ownership rights.
In this case, Whois is accurate and the buyer is under RSA.
(But I can't prove that every such buyer would!)

I guess it comes down to what we think Joe Businessman would do if he came 
to believe that IPv6 was farther off  than he was led to believe had he been 
reading the popular trade press over the last decade.

This is another example of where business incentives drive behavior to the 
detriment of Whois accuracy if we maintain the needs requirement for 
transfers.

Regards,
Mike









----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Ash" <lar at mwtcorp.net>
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>; <matthew at matthew.at>
Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate


> Hi Owen,
>  Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>> On May 19, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2011 4:48 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> That's really the best question. Who are the speculators that we're 
>>> worried about who have enough cash to actually affect the price of IP 
>>> address space and availability *and* who are stupid enough to do that 
>>> when they know a collapse is coming soon?
>>>
>>
>> Speculation for profit is not the only form of speculation I am concerned 
>> about, but, even that if you corner the market at T0 and sell it all off 
>> at T2
>> with a 200% price increase is damaging.
>>
>> The form that worries me the most, however, is if $MEGA_TELCO and 
>> $MEGA_CABLECO purchase all of the available addresses as they come on
>> the market, leaving nothing for their smaller less capitalized 
>> competitors to use, they may be bale to forestall (and would now have a 
>> financial
>> interest in doing so) their IPv6 deployments for enough years to 
>> seriously damage their competitors that had no non-IPv6 alternative.
>
> Unfortunately this may already have happened. One of my techs in a 
> conversation
> with a cable tech (low level so take with a little grain of salt) was told
> that the cable company he worked for (changed owners recently so I'm not 
> sure
> who the parent currently is) and comcast have gotten so much IPV4 that 
> there is
> no shortage in V4 addresses and that they had no plans in converting to 
> IPV6.
> The current needs basis may have been too loose to accomplish the purpose 
> it
> was intended to do.
>
>>
>> I see no reason to produce policy that enables this behavior and many 
>> reasons not to.
>>
>>> Also, if these speculators are really so bad, won't all the altruistic 
>>> sellers (some of whom are represented in this discussion, no doubt) 
>>> simply refuse to sell to them at *any* price, but have nice low prices 
>>> for non-profits and other good causes that need space?
>>>
>>
>> I think this presumes a number of facts not in evidence, not the least of 
>> which is that one can readily determine that your purchaser is,
>> in fact, such a speculator.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> Larry Ash
> Network Administrator
> Mountain West Telephone
> 123 W 1st St.
> Casper, WY 82601
> Office 307 233-8387
> _______________________________________________
> 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.