[arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language

Matthew Kaufman 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)

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list