[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

[Jason Schiller]

In this discussion about "large ISPs", it is important to separate
organizations into two categories:

1. Those that hold only legacy address space
2. Those that may (or may not) hold legacy address space, and
    also a direct allocation / assignment from ARIN.

1. In the case of the former it is possible that they acquired
classfull addressing, and gotten 120 or so extra /16s, based
on the then understanding of efficient use, and routability.
Assuming slow growth and a supply of addresses that will not
be used before most of the Internet supports IPv6, then yes
these organizations have a competitive advantage.
(These organizations also happen to be the ones with the
greatest potential to benefit monetarily from entering into an
agreement to transfer IPs.)

In the case of the former with faster growth, where their
remaining legacy addresses represent two years or less of
available growth, then there is no advantage.

2. In the case of the latter, they have already exceeded their
legacy address holdings, and have had to return to ARIN
for additional address space.  Since that time they have had
to demonstrate efficient use of all of their address space
(including legacy space) prior to getting additional space.
These organizations can only have a single quarter supply
of addresses.

The only caveat is if the organization's growth has declined.
In that case what was one quarter may now be a year.  Or
if they are loosing (and continue to loose) customers, no
new addresses should be needed.

Organizations who are not growing or actively loosing their
customer base does not create a business threat to a
competing provider that is facing a future in ability to grow.

The two year's need test for transfers opens these ranges
above to eight times larges, but is essentially the same
argument.

___Jason



On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:25 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> >>> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
> >>> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free,
> which
> >>> provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities
> seeking
> >>> to purchase addresses at a much higher relative price.
> >>
> >> Yes, it has been argued. It hasn't necessarily been substantiated, nor
> has
> >> anyone raising said argument provided any real evidence to support it.
> >
> > Of course the incumbent's assets offer a competitive advantage over
> > the challenger. With such a prima facie case, the burden rests on who
> > disagree to disprove it.
>
> That's a different argument.
>
> The original argument was that larger ISP's resources somehow had a
> competitive advantage over the resources held by smaller ISPs.
>
> I don't believe that this has been proven or constitutes a prima facie
> case.
>
> Owen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130620/8e5fa6fe/attachment.htm>