[arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language
george.herbert at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 20:23:14 EST 2014
I object to the viewpoint that we should use policy to confuse things so
that IPv6 is more attractive sooner. There are systemic risks with IPv4
runout and inflexibility prior to IPv6 being fully baked in the
works-for-everyone sense. The time to have made those adjustments was 2008
or so, not now.
If we're going to go back to recent history for economic lessons, the Fed
letting Lehman Brothers crash is a good one. They were trying to make a
couple of points, too, but the collateral damage nearly caused a
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> This, too.
> On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll not answer for Owen, but your question prompts me to say that the
> transfer market is not a goodness. It was, in my mind, a reasonable yet
> distasteful stop gap on the way toward a once again more unified protocol
> environment...to wit.. IPv6.
> My market theory suggest that transfer market at its free-est and most
> open deters and confuses the way forward. The purpose of standards is to
> eliminate confusion and choices which require understanding investment
> options and application consequences. While standards have their downside,
> one of them is not those elements of marketplace choice.
> The more options existing the more confused. Investment=legacy.
> End-users must predict and interpret, making decisions that may come back
> to haunt. Developers delay their innovation in order to better understand
> whether they're investing in a blind technology. Transport providers must
> deploy and support more complicated configurations with their limited
> funds, inevitably satisfying some an thwarting others.
> Would that the transfer market and all efforts to prolong IPv4 come to an
> end quickly IMO.
> End of soapbox
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:13 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2014, at 5:20 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:32 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> I've been thinking about this maybe the restrictions for anti-flipping
>> don't belong in section 8 at all. Maybe they belong in section 4 as they
>> are intended to protect the ARIN IPv4 free pool.
>> > I disagree. I don't want to see flipping become a tool for speculation
>> in the market post-exhaustion, any more than I want to see it become a tool
>> for draining the free pool. In fact, I think that the former might be
>> significantly more harmful than the latter at this point.
>> Owen -
>> Could you elaborate your thoughts regarding the harm that might occur?
>> I believe that folks understand risks associated with sudden/unexpected
>> IPv4 free
>> pool depletion, but you are suggesting that liquidity itself in the
>> IPv4 transfer
>> market is harmful. As that is neither obvious nor aligned with most
>> market theory,
>> it would be best for you to elaborate your thoughts some on that aspect.
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> 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.
> 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.
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML