[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

[Jason Schiller]

There are two classes of address users on the Internet.

1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow

2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow

In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if
someone else buys all the
available IPv4 addresses.

In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough IPv4
addresses to make it
through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at least
have a longer time
horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business impact
of running out
of IPv4.

On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it
through until the
date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before your
competitors
you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content that
your transit customers
desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to
serve.


You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get you
through transition
or more than your competitor (which ever is less).


I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need addresses
for growth have already
secured enough to get them through transition.  (If that was the case we
wouldn't be having this
discussion.)

Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board
transfers that they cannot
currently justify under ARIN policy.  Certainly some have decided not to
secure a future in IPv4
addresses because the risk is too high.  Certainly some have limited their
activities because of
the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about IPv6
adoption time lines,
uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen other
things.


Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that could
be made available have
already been made available.


Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not secured
enough IPv4 addresses
to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption.

Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses available
on the market for the
right price.

Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could be
returned and made
available through the current mechanisms.

Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of below
board transfers
and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can
justify for the
next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior where
organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential
access to IPv4
addresses for potential future need over organizations that need addresses
now
(or in the next two year time horizon)?



__Jason




On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> On 6/3/2015 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space absent
>> justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including,
>> but not limited to:
>>         1.      Competitive advantage
>>         2.      Anticompetitive practices
>>         3.      Price gouging
>>         4.      Market manipulation
>>
>>
> That's all true. The ability to obtain unlimited address space *could* be
> used that way. Of course with a finite amount of space and without a free
> pool, it is really hard to "obtain unlimited address space".
>
> Things that stand in the way:
> 1. There isn't an "unlimited" amount of address space
> 2. No buyer in the transfer market has an "unlimited" amount of money (and
> even if they did, they wouldn't spend it doing this unless there was some
> way to profit from it, which really needs to suppose that they can also
> prevent IPv6 from happening)
> 3. At least so far, there's more space available to transfer than buyers
> (suggested by the fact that so far, we are not seeing significant bidding
> wars between big players going after the same pieces of space) - this
> suggests that even entities which could afford to do what you claim will
> happen aren't doing it.
> 4. And most important, almost all of the space is already in the hands of
> organizations that need it for their own purposes, so won't be willing to
> sell. Your employer, my employer, and others have all acquired space their
> need for their current and ongoing operations - the only way in the near
> future to acquire the space that Microsoft or Amazon (for instance) has
> acquired to run their cloud services would be to purchase the entire
> company. And then you'd be doing an 8.2 transfer!
>
> And because those organizations have the space they need for their own
> purposes, none of the things you are worried about can matter:
>
> Competitive advantage? Anticompetitive practices? Doesn't really work
> against competitors who already have space.
>
> Price gouging? Market manipulation? Can't do that to people who already
> have the space they need.
>
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/6733e652/attachment.htm>