[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
lar at mwtcorp.net
Thu Sep 6 13:36:24 EDT 2012
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:11:36 +0000
Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> We can (and have done so often) argue about whether and what technical
>> parameters should exist for ARIN to consider utilization justified.
>> Encoding technical paradigms du-jour into policy is not often a good idea.
> Exactly. The concept of need depends on a technical configuration as well as
>a business planning horizon, both of which are highly variable. Technical
>configurations and architectures are subject to human creativity and economic
>incentives, which is why the whole concept of needs assessment is now being
>exposed as a non-scientific, "flexible" process. Note, I did not say
>"completely arbitrary," but I would say "not objective and standardized."
> This makes it increasingly puzzling to me why certain people insist on
>retention of traditional needs assessments as a matter of religion. I fully
>understand their desire to discourage unproductive hoarding, but that is an
>economic problem, not a technical one, and is best addressed through
>economically oriented policies. Nearly all entities who spend real money to
>acquire addresses are either going to use them or find a way to lease them to
>people who will use them.
I think there is ample evidence to the contrary when you look at radio
The real or perceived economics of removing competitors from the market place
are powerful and complex.
Large entities have bid up and secured spectrum they never used and they
have been mostly unwilling to allow smaller entities to purchase or lease it.
frequencies have, at times, not been well suited for the purchaser but it was
purchased at auction anyway. Frequently at costs of millions or tens of
of dollars and then never deployed. One can only speculate as to the
of the Companies involved but the effect has been to limit or eliminate
disruptive competition. It has been particularly effective against the
that can not afford even a modest cost in lightly populated areas.
Making sure that the same kind of thing does not occur in IP should be easier
(technical requirements are admittedly quite different) but still needs to be
in our minds. I don't see this as a religious or philosophical issue but a
practical one. (Actually my philosophy prefers market-based solutions.)
>Rather than continue to bicker about the MSFT case,
>this community should try to move toward a new consensus regarding the role
>of light-handed, market-friendly policy measures to discourage unproductive
>use of available blocks.
I would assert that your study indicates that to some degree current policy is
accomplishing the tasks at hand. IMO the market and decision makers need time
adapt to the current situation before we change anything unless a glaring
problem that stops all or most progress. If there was no activity in the V4
market I would be concerned. If there was no continued activity in assignments
from the Free Pool I'd be concerned. Your study shows that both are
a portion of the load. I think that is better than many would have expected.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Mountain West Telephone
123 W 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387
More information about the ARIN-PPML