[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....
paul at redbarn.org
Sat Sep 3 05:56:01 EDT 2011
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 12:22:10 -0400
Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> There are a handful of dominant voices on PPML that are against
> ownership of IPv4 at all costs. They blame the speculators. On the
> other hand, what if it costs me $500,000 to adopt IPv6 but I can
> satisfy my 10 year requirement by purchasing $200,000 in IPv4. ARIN
> should allow this.
> (Note: I support IPv6 and am running IPv6 on my network currently, so
> my intent is not to avoid IPv6 adoption).
Noted. However, as to your question, ARIN does not prohibit the
operating model you described above. Transferrable right to use is an
effective way to achieve the described result; property rights per se
are not relevant to anything except non-needs-based holders. That's
the only place where speculation rears its (ugly) head.
> ARIN needs to treat IPv4 and IPv6 as equals, and allow IPv4 space to
> trade freely. Once it becomes too expensive to buy IPv4, many will
> begin to see IPv6 as the more attractive option.
can you explain how "free trade" will increase utilization of IPv4
compared to the needs-based transfer mechanism described in NRPM 8?
More information about the ARIN-PPML