[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-151 Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

[Mike Burns]

Hi Kevin,

But the big boys are limited to a /12 each.
There's like 1000 times that much space allocated but unrouted.
And if you are planning on buying addresses to keep your competitor from 
getting them, by definition you need to be at the end of the current pool of 
available addresses, and certain that no more will enter the pool.
And when that happens, the price of addresses will go up, and more will 
enter the pool.

OK, I should not have engaged in an analogy, I must have been hungry.

Regards,
Mike



>
Snippage to a single point...
>
> OK, my assertion is that holding other conditions constant, raising
> the price of a commodity leads to more efficient use of it.
> Like, I figure that there is less left uneaten on the plate at Ruth's
> Chris than there is at Sizzlers, in general, because people don't
> like to waste expensive things.
> (There must have been some psychological test run at some point to
> test my hypothesis, I will see if I can find one.)
> (And I suppose the taste of a Ruth's Chris steak is not constant with
> the taste of a Sizzlers steak.)
>
>
I will argue that there is probably more waste at Ruth's Chris than there is 
at Sizzler, because the patrons at Ruth's have more money than they know 
what to do with and they are not concerned about waste.
It is the poor folks at Sizzler who have saved up for a month to go out and 
have a half inch steak that are more likely to lick the plates clean and eat 
the potato skins.
The rich folks will leave stuff on the plate to save room for that $16 
chocolate sin cake and a $40 cognac.

The same is what I think will happen with a non-needs based market.  The big 
boys with huge budgets because of scale will have no problem with snapping 
up a few million dollars worth of netblocks and warehousing them because the 
netblocks are now a non-depreciating capital asset and buying them will not 
affect the bottom line on the balance sheet.  The big boys will do this in 
part to make sure that nobody else can use them.  In a non-needs based 
market IP's are a speculative investment, whether or not you actually use 
them.

Another risk is that as in the game of Monopoly, the act of depriving your 
competitor from access to an asset can be more important even than owning 
the asset.  It could well be worth a few million to deprive a competitor 
from resources they need to succeed.

Kevin