[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
mike at nationwideinc.com
Thu Jun 13 11:48:24 EDT 2013
Yes, we have been here before.
This conversation is in the context of considering a cap on needs-free
Such a cap would obviate the objection you raise, that competitors will
gobble up enough IPv4 address to stifle their competitors' ability to
No matter how deep your pockets, or how confident you are that your
investment won't turn to dust in the face of IPv6 deployment, your ability
to corner the market for purposes of price manipulation or depriving your
competitors is limited to an amount far below what would be required.
I have already made mention of a /8 on the market for years. In this
environment do you really think it possible to deprive your competitors of
IPv4 addresses while limited to either a /12 total aggregate or /12 in
purchases per year?
From: lar at mwtcorp.net
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:35 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:05:12 -0400
It feels like we have been here before,
"Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> I understand that there is a danger of overpurchasing (by whomever's
> definition) that comes from the removal of a needs test for transfers.
> In most cases we rely on the price of the addresses to provide some check
> on this practice, as it would for the overpurchasing of any other asset a
> corporation may choose to invest in. I think we should leave those
> definition of what an overpurchase is to the buyers, who will have a range
> of intended purposes, projected growth rates, planning horizons and other
> considerations. At least with a cap of some sort we limit the overpurchase
> risk to overall address usage efficiency.
Here is where we disagree somewhat. To a deep pocket, I derive utility from
IP I deploy, and the IP that I prevent my competitors from deploying. We
seen this in the RF spectrum. Vast amounts of spectrum are unavailable and
unused in the Rocky Mountain West due to a small number of national
purchasing the spectrum at auction and then choosing not to use it. It
done to increase it's value. It was done to stifle competition and to some
it has been successful.
A needs test doesn't have to be difficult, or onerous but without any
for need I fear a "use it or loose it" policy would be needed which I think
be way worse.
> A vibrant market is one of the best mechanisms to prevent what you
> mention-the problem of addresses sitting idle while real need exists.
> As the price of addresses rise and transactional roadblocks diminish, idle
> addresses will come into the market. As the need rises, the price will
> rise, driving efficiencies in the utilization of addresses and wringing
> the most efficiency through the highest and best use of the addresses.
> And as I mentioned, due to the needs test requirement, these early IPv4
> address transactions almost always involve neophyte parties on either side
> of the transaction, separated by language, culture, and an ocean. Often
> these parties are not familiar with their own RIR policy, much less the
> policy of another region. Most of the time the decision to sell or buy
> addresses has to overcome corporate inertia and antipathy to new, unusual,
> and unlikely-to-be-repeated transactions. This means education about the
> RIRs and their position squarely in the middle of the buyer and the
> How likely is this transaction to occur for small allocations like the /24
> needed by Mr. Ryerse of this thread?
> I contend that removing the needs requirement will allow for less
> uncertainty in what is currently a fraught process for both buyers and
> sellers, leading to more transactions, more price stability, and simpler
> transactions for all parties, including ARIN, who will avoid the time and
> effort of needs testing transfers.
If they don't "need" it why do they want it? I will accept the argument that
current needs justification is overly complex and somewhat arbitrary but not
it's totally unnecessary.
This is an old argument, one that I doubt we will ever resolve.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian Jones To: Mike Burns Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net ; Mike Burns
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
> ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
> Hi Mike,
> I suppose it is just my old school thinking that you should be at least
> "this tall" to ride the ride. Given your explanations below I could relax
> my requirements for demonstrating technical support need for transfers. I
> actually didn't realize we were only considering transfers and not the
> remaining free blocks, so thank you for clarifying that.
> It still seems that inefficient use of address space could occur when a
> bidder buys much larger blocks than needed due to the lack of any
> structured needs requirements. At a minimum a block of addresses could sit
> idle and unused while needs exists elsewhere. But really IPv6 should be
> the best solution for those needing addresses moving forward any way... :)
> On Jun 12, 2013 3:15 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> > > Thanks for your input.
> > > May I ask why you think there should be a requirement for
> demonstration of minimal technical need for transfers, if the reason is
> not to prevent hoarding and price manipulation?
> > > Remember we are talking only about transfers, and not the
> intelligent allocation of the remaining IPv4 free pool, and that money
> will be the determining factor in who receives IPv4 addresses under the
> current transfer policy, so long as the needs test is met. That is, we are
> already at a point where the highest bidder will get the addresses,
> irrespective of what his justified need for the addresses is, just that he
> has met the RIR need test.
> > > I have been operating under the assumption that the underlying
> reason for requiring the needs test for transfers which are already priced
> is to prevent a buyer without needs from damaging the market through
> hoarding or cornering. I understand that many people simply do not like
> the idea that address blocks can be bought and sold, and that money has
> any influence on who gets addresses, but we are beyond that now.
> > > Regards,
> > Mike
> > > > From: Brian Jones
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To: Mike Burns
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN
> run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
> > >
> > Maybe that was utopian thinking on my part. It would be nice to
> disregard what happens with IPv4 space but that seems to invite some sort
> of chaos and the last thing needed is more chaos...
> > Intelligent allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is important in my
> > From Dave Farmer's email earlier:
> > "I think the more important issue is an appropriate criteria on the
> lower-end and for new enterants, the current slow-start for IPv4 isn't
> going to work, post-ARIN free pool. Yes, I know eliminating need
> alltogether eliminates that problem, but I'm not sure I can get myself all
> the way there. I'd like to see some minimal technical criteria that
> entitles someone to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and more
> than just that they have the money to do so. Maybe its just as simple as
> demonstrating efficient use of at least a /24. If you can't do that then
> you can only buy a /24, then you utilize it and you qualify for bigger
> blocks. "
> > Regardless of whether the size blocks discussed is agreeable or not, I
> do agree wth the part about the need for "...minimal technical criteria
> that entitles someone to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and
> more than just that they have the money to do so."
> > (Of course I support the idea that we all move to IPv6!) :)
> > --
> > Brian
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> >> Hi Brian, Matthew, and Martin,
> >> >> Can I take your plus ones to indicate support of the cap even in
> the face of the shell company issue?
> >> (As well as support of the idea that we should all move to IPv6.)
> >> >> Regards,
> >> Mike
> >> >> >> From: Brian Jones
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:03 AM
> >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out
> (was:Re:Against 2013-4)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Martin Hannigan
> <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24 PM, cb.list6 <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
> >>>> On Jun 11, 2013 7:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > When will we start caring about IPv6 and start ignoring IPv4???
> Who cares if people set up shells to acquire v4 space from others? Let
> 'em, and get v6 deployed already.
> >>>> >
> >>>> +1
> >>>> CB
> >>> +1
> >>> Best,
> >>> -M
> >> +1
> >> --
> >> Brian
> >> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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.
> >> >> ________________________________
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
Mountain West Telephone
123 W 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387
More information about the ARIN-PPML