[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Sep 4 15:55:28 EDT 2012


On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:35 , Paul Vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:

> On 9/4/2012 6:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.
> 
> i've now sat with several arin members who have told me privately that their business needs for ipv4 growth are measured in half-decades not years, and so they were optioning future address space through a grayish transfer market even before arin went to a three month regime. i say "grayish" because the option agreements are a private matter not subject to arin rules, and the space in question will inevitably be transferred to the recipient upon demonstrable need. i've been told that the directed transfer rule whereby resources can be transferred between parties without first returning it to arin and then reallocating it, was the only instrument they needed.
> 
> to me this says arin has a workable system even at three months, and that unless this community chose to forego any needs basis at all, there is no way to ensure that addresses are available to those whose real demonstrated need -- which will be demonstrated in terms of capital for the network and also capital for the options and ultimately the resources.
> 
> this community has reached consensus on three month allocation windows. that consensus could be changed by debate. i welcome such debate.
> 
> but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the community's chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally a "legitimate" use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a win". nor would any of us enjoy an internet in which policies of this kind are set in any way other than by community consensus.
> 

I am confused here, Paul, or perhaps you are.

I was most certainly NOT arguing for eliminating the needs-basis test. I was stating that the current 3-month window does, in fact, disadvantage some classes of ARIN members to the advantage of other classes of members.

For example:

	Members that can afford to purchase through the transfer market today now have the advantage of a 24-month window.
	End-Users still have the advantage of a 12-month assignment window.

The current policy means that only ISPs of limited financial means are limited to a 3-month window.

I did not and would not advocate setting policies through any manner other than community consensus and I am surprised that you interpreted my statement in that direction.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/3bc43630/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list