[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 6/3/2015 9:19 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> 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)?
>
>

Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would 
significantly do what you say is good for the community above?

Matthew Kaufman