[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Wed Sep 5 12:08:49 EDT 2012

On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> [Milton L Mueller] John, you probably read an earlier version of the study which did not include our analysis of the use of the number blocks purchased by MSFT. (We wanted to verify certain methodological aspects of that before publishing it.)
> We found that since acquiring the addresses, which is now more than a year ago, MSFT has actually _reduced_ the number of blocks being routed. They have only put into service a few /24s and /22s I think, and have actually withdrawn from use a couple of /16s.

Milton - 
   Use of IP address blocks is independent of routing of address blocks,
   particularly if you operate data centers with numerous servers.  The 
   desire for using globally unique numbering for such devices often does 
   not result in the address blocks being globally routed.

> Now, I cannot assert that ARIN did not do a needs assessment. Only ARIN staff can verify or refute that.

   It was done, and you have been told that by ARIN staff (i.e. myself) on 
   numerous occasions, and yet you continue to publish allusions to the
   contrary.  I understand this as a journalistic technique, but not as any
   form of academic research. 

> I can, however, assert with confidence that a 1-year time horizon was used at that time (according to your policy in place), and that the entity who claimed need based on that timeline is not, after more than one year, using the vast majority of the addresses; indeed, fewer addresses from the Nortel block are being routed after the transaction than before. Therefore, there are legitimate questions to be raised about what “needs assessment” actually consists of.

   Alas, assuming that address block usage only occurs with the public routing
   of the address block is a flawed methodology.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list