[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2012, at 20:44 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.
>>>
>>> This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.

The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation 
pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain 
not to last long enough.
>>>
>>> Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy.
>>>
>>> If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful.
>>>
>>> Owen

No, it is evidence that the consumption has adapted to the change of 
supply. And in positive ways, for the longevity of Ipv4. So which is it? 
Do you appreciate the benefits of the transfer markets and are happy 
that it is being used or you are unhappy about its use and would like 
for us all to be subjected solely to its mercies ever sooner?

>>
>> Demand is flexible. Therefore, so is supply.
>>
> To some extent...

Apparently to the extent measurable by the ARIN allocation fall-off not 
made up for in transfer market.

> For a finite resource, such as globally unique IPv4 addresses, eventually you reach a point where demand exceeds supply at any achievable price point and the market effectively terminates.

Currently, the evidence suggests we are nowhere near that point.

I doubt either of us have economic bonafides, but markets dont terminate 
due to lack of supply. Only due to lack of demand.

Your hope is that the demand will be satisfied elsewhere, namely IPv6. 
And that it will be a sudden relentless wave.

Do you have reason to be hopeful or is that simply what you have banked 
on and wish to happen?
>
> That's not what I am advocating, either.

A return to the 12 month burn rate, which you advocated for, equated to 
exhaustion within this calendar year, followed by the transfer market 
solely being responsible for efficient utilization.

Same difference.
>
>> What do you think will happen when ARIN free pool dries up? Who will have the addresses then? Will we still need them? If we do, how will we get them? And will we as a whole be better off then now?
The non rose-tinted view is that all those who need addresses will be 
subjected solely to the mercy of the transfer market, largely composed 
of very large players and large legacy holders, a set of entities that 
overlaps to some extent and will have a natural tendency to 
self-organize into a cartel like formation. Their rules and prices will 
be what matters and they will have conflicted interest (at best) at 
moving their customer (victim) base over to v6 where rir policy returns 
to relevancy.

We will not be better off. There is no way to predict how long IPv4 will 
remain relevant and/or necessary.
> Extending the duration of the ARIN free pool by creating an early 
> artificial shortage through policy
Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool by reducing its burn 
rate is the only sane approach.

Joe