[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu Jun 13 12:34:03 EDT 2013
On Jun 13, 2013, at 8:35 AM, <lar at mwtcorp.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:05:12 -0400
> Hi Mike,
> 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 the
> IP I deploy, and the IP that I prevent my competitors from deploying. We have
> 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 companies
> purchasing the spectrum at auction and then choosing not to use it. It wasn't
> done to increase it's value. It was done to stifle competition and to some degree
> it has been successful.
What percentage of the spectrum did each company have to buy to have that effect? A /12 maximum would limit any one org to 0.02% of the total IPv4 space before needs justification kicks in.
There are other valid concerns here, but I think the /12 limit does address the concern about anticompetitive behavior.
More information about the ARIN-PPML