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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri May 20 18:12:35 EDT 2011

On May 20, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Larry Ash wrote:

> 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.

Comcast is definitely moving forward with IPv6, they've made numerous public
statements and have even begun delivering some level of IPv6 services to
trial users.

Further, the idea that a single-sided retention of IPv4-only is feasible is as laughably
absurd as the idea that a single-sided migration to IPv6-only is feasible. You need
a common protocol at both ends to make the internet work and there are enough
end-points that will be forced to go with IPv6 that nobody will be able to remain
IPv4-only for all that long, regardless of their supply of addresses.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list