<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=content-type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT>
<DIV><BR>>The point being that globally unique IPv4 addresses will only have
value to a corporation whilst the majority of their target customers continue to
use them as on today's consensus-based Internet.<BR><BR>>If all of your
customers have migrated to IPv6, they're worthless<BR><BR>>If the IPv4
Internet has fragmented, they're worthless.<BR><BR>>Is it 100% clear to
everyone who actually "owns" all of the current IPv4 address allocations
today?<BR><BR>>Also, the future of the Internet is clearly mobile. There are
already about as many mobile Internet users in China as there are people in the
US, if not more. Same story in India. Even in the US, there simply won't be
>enough IPv4 addresses to cover a mass move to mobile devices no matter how
much you're prepared to pay for them.<BR><BR>>So assuming that any semblance
of an efficient market in globally unique IPv4 numbers can be created now is
IMHO highly questionable. <BR><BR><FONT size=2 face=Arial>>Ray
Hunter</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Ray,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I'm sorry but I don't see how the prior statements
lead to the conclusion that an efficient market in globally unique IPv4 numbers
can not now be created.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Is it because there is confusion over who actually
"owns" the current IPv4 allocations today?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Because that goes right to the issues with whois
veracity that I think will be improved with competing registries, and is likely
to improve anyway, as IP address values are understood and claims are
made.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Yes, IPv4 addresses only have value if customers
use them on the Internet. Yes, if all customers migrate to IPv6, they are
worthless, and yes, if the IPv4 is fragmented to the point of non-usability,
they are worthless.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Yes, there will be continued demand for addresses
that will be larger than can be accomodated if by the IPv4 pool, if the Internet
retains it's current single-level NAT architecture.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But I don't see how the conclusion that a viable
market cannot be created follows from your statements, though.Some have
posted that the market will provide incentive to transition that is otherwise
lacking, a problem described way back by a prescient John Curran over 15 years
ago.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2
face=Arial>http://www.armware.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc1669.html</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Certainly you have elucidated risks to those who
participate in those markets, but those risks will presumably be known to
participants, and presumably were known to Microsoft before they paid $7.5
million.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV><BR>Mike Burns</DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>