[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

Thomas Brenneke thomas at networkredux.com
Tue Sep 4 17:36:33 EDT 2012


Well said.

Thomas Brenneke
Network Redux, LLC
5200 SW Macadam Ave Ste 450
Portland, Oregon 97239
Desk:  503-274-9905 x501



On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Steven Ryerse
<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>wrote:

>  I think some of the comments below by Paul Vixie - and the study done by
> Milton Mueller (and associates) – clearly point out that the policies that
> have been put in place to slow the exhaustion of IPv4 are extremely out of
> synch with general business practices.   No organization - profit or not –
> uses a 3 month planning horizon.  Many use 30 year horizons since they
> purchase real estate and either have a 30 year mortgage or depreciate the
> property over 30 years.  These horizons have been built into the US & state
> tax codes for many decades.  This community, it appears in large part
> because of IPv4 exhaustion – has decided a 3 month horizon is acceptable in
> certain cases.  No company big or small is going to risk the significant
> capital it takes to build a data center or build an ISP if they can only be
> sure of 90 days’ worth of IP addresses that they need to run their
> business.  In fact, even a year’s worth isn’t enough to take on a big risk
> either.  Would you spend 400 million dollars or more on a super duper data
> center if you could only GUARANTEE that you would have 90 days’ worth of
> addresses or even only a years’ worth.  No sane person or organization
> would do that.****
>
> ** **
>
> In Milton’s study he clearly outlines that Microsoft chose to purchase a
> large number of addresses thru bankruptcy court, even though ARIN has
> plenty to allocate.  According to Milton’s numbers, Microsoft made a
> business decision to pay over seven million dollars when they could have
> gotten the same number of IPv4 addresses from ARIN for less than a hundred
> thousand dollars.  Microsoft is not a dumb company and they certainly don’t
> waste over seven million dollars  for no reason.  It is pretty obvious that
> Milton is right that they did it because they wanted to secure plenty of
> addresses so that the capital they are investing in their various
> businesses isn’t at risk for lack of IPv4 addresses.  They did what any
> sane organization would do and minimized their risk – and it was worth it
> for them to do that even at the cost of seven million dollars more than
> what ARIN charges.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> While I would concur that with the realities of IPv4 exhaustion, the
> horizon built into various ARIN policies should not be 30 years – I think a
> strong case can be made to increase it to at least one and probably two or
> even five years.  Yes I know that the effect of that might cause IPv4 to be
> exhausted earlier than with present policies, but I think it is clear from
> ARIN’s mission statement that ARIN should allocate in conjunction with real
> world reasonable business practices and not in the make believe world of 90
> day or even one year horizons.  If ARIN and this community choose not to
> align policies with the real world then the real world will just make ARIN
> mostly irrelevant by creating a separate IPv4 market - which in case you
> haven’t noticed is already beginning to happen.   I would note here that
> any organization who has already gone around ARIN, or will choose to in the
> future, are part of this Community too.  This Community if it wants to stay
> relevant should take their needs into consideration as well – even if they
> never participate directly in this community!  ARIN’s mission is to
> allocate prudently and I reiterate that it isn’t to NOT allocate.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Steven L Ryerse*
>
> *President*
>
> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338*
>
> *770.656.1460 - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099 - Office*
>
> *770.392-0076 - Fax*
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse
> Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.****
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Vixie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:36 PM
> *To:* Owen DeLong
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.
>
> paul****
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/cdd5d8d8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/cdd5d8d8/attachment.jpg>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list