[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Owen DeLong]

>  
> Hi Matthew,
>  
> It would be simple to see that somebody is buying up IPv4 addresses and the price would rise accordingly, thwarting his plans.
> Anybody engaged in that behavior would have to first find the sellers, a considerable problem, and impossible to do silently.

> Then he would have to do hundreds and hundreds of transactions, which would take a long time and everybody would see it in the public transfer lists posted by the RIRs.

Why? Why couldn’t the transactions all be completed before the first one is filed with an RIR? After all, if you’re willing to circumvent policy to the extent mentioned by David in his other messages, surely it is trivial to make those purchase agreements in such a way that the transaction is finalized well ahead of a coordinated notification to the RIR(s).

> Worldwide there have been less than 1500 transfers.

No RIR is completely out of IPv4 yet, either.

> My rough number is about 24 million total addresses have been bought or sold since 2010, leaving out intra-company transfers.

The point being?

> You seem to think there is somebody, somewhere you can tap on the shoulder and offer a couple of billion and he can transfer hundreds of millions of addresses to you.  Without the needs test, you can be sure every transfer will be booked and visible, unlike those transfers driven underground by the needs test. That visibility, and innate seller fragmentation,  is our protection against this kind of scheme.

How can we be sure of that? What assurance do we have that this is the case? What assurance can you offer that they will be made visible immediately?

Really, there is no such assurance and pretending that there is strikes me as very questionable.

> IMO, the mobile phone operators are not going to invest and risk billions of dollars on a reputationally dangerous ploy like this. Instead they simply appropriate some DoD space and run CGN. Or they could turn on IPv6, which is not “hard” but which is fruitless in today’s Internet.

I agree… I don’t think it is the mobile operators who are most likely to be the problem here. Most of them are actually showing pretty strong support for IPv6 (AT&T and SPRINT notwithstanding).

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140612/28695bb0/attachment.htm>