[arin-ppml] Spartan allocation proposal for transfers
owen at delong.com
Mon Oct 10 12:25:09 EDT 2011
On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Owen,
> Yes, it was a dense read, I was hoping that since Edelman advised ARIN that the spartan concept had been discussed at some level there, and some simplification of the concepts elucidated in the paper could be forthcoming from that direction.
I believe this is research Mr. Edelman pursued after (and likely as a result of) his advising ARIN in the development of NRPM 8.3. I certainly would support the idea of ARIN bringing Mr. Edelman back to discuss this with the community.
> However, I find the price graphs baffling, and the duration of extinguishment and protections against agents adopting multiple identities to be subjects for more discussion.
Definitely. I would not support an extinguishment period less than the maximum duration allowed for justified need under policy.
> Of course this begs the question of transfer restrictions driving unbooked transfers, but still the concept is interesting.
I think for the reasons outlined in the paper and the other reasons already well discussed on this list, those are of less concern than some would have us believe. I think the likelihood of unbooked transfers achieving long-term success on a wide scale is rather small.
> I don’t find the social cost of table growth to be as high as the authors believe, I don’t foresee fragmentation happening to such an extent as to damage stability, but I realize this is just opinion at this stage.
I'm actually beginning to believe that IPv4 table fragmentation may become the biggest IPv6 driver relatively soon, so, I'm willing to agree that perhaps continuing to make efforts to artificially constrain IPv4 table growth may, in fact, be unwise.
> As the authors state, this is an unusual market and it may be fruitful for economists to apply their tools.
Or, perhaps, it is an unusual market and their tools will prove wholly inadequate to the task at hand until they have experience enough with the market to develop applicable tools. Unfortunately, only time will tell.
Note, I'm not saying that the above is the case, just saying that there are at least two possibilities worthy of consideration.
> From: Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:44 AM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Spartan allocation proposal for transfers
> Thanks for posting that. I found it largely indecipherable, but, I confess ignorance in both the math involved and the theoretical economics.
> I do find the assumption that the price of IPv4 addresses declines post exhaustion rather startling vs. the reality that everyone expects IPv4 addressing prices will increase until IPv4 is obsoleted.
> I find the spartan rule idea novel and interesting. I don't believe it is a viable substitute for needs-basis, but, I do believe it might be a worth-while additional constraint.
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> New HBS paper which may be of interest to this community seeks to offer market flexibility while contraining table growth:
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML