[arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language
matthew at matthew.at
Mon Feb 24 23:10:20 EST 2014
On 2/24/2014 6:33 AM, Bill Darte 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
I will yet again point out, as I'm sure others will as well, that it
hardly matters how large your soapbox when push comes to shove and
someone who has money and needs more IPv4 space figures out that there's
people willing to let them use other allocated space in exchange for
some of that money.
If you wanted the outcome you propose, you should have made IPv6
seamless to deploy and fully-featured for the people who need to deploy
it some years ago. (Note that there are still ongoing arguments about
the latter, to this very day)
More information about the ARIN-PPML