[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Thu Jun 4 16:52:51 EDT 2015


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

I posed a question...

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 I think 2015-2 would legitimize what is currently an out of policy
transfer, and thus
reduce the risk and increase the likelihood of this behavior?

Yes, for mutli-national organizations.

This would make it legitimate for any organization that has a legal
presence and
does business in the ARIN service region, the APNIC region and the RIPE
region
to buy more than a two year supply of IP addresses from an organization in
the
ARIN service region.

Such an organization could buy a two year supply that is justified by need
in the
ARIN region, transfer them (in smaller parts) to an APNIC org that can
justify them,
and transfer them to an RIPE org.  And repeat until there was a 4 year, 6
year, 8 year
supply.

This would be legitimate, and certainly would be less risk than buying a
future of
8 years worth of IPv4 addressing, as such I would expect 2015-2 to
significantly
increase this behavior.


___Jason



On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
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/20150604/97becf74/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list