<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
No one owns the addresses today. They're just 32 bit numbers. That's
all. Nothing more. Nothing less. No one ever owned the addresses. They
have zero intrinsic value.<br>
<br>
The only reason they are perceived as having any value today is the
fact that several million Internet users all around the globe have
consented to respect ICANN (and in turn the RIRs) coordination of IPv4
address allocation in order to make those 32 bit numbers globally
unique, and we can't manufacture any more numbers.<br>
<br>
As I stated, today's Internet is consensus-based. I repeat the word
"consensus." Should I say that again? Maybe not. I think you get the
idea though. China Telecom and China Mobile accept the authority of
ICANN, just like everyone else. They have by far the biggest user base,
and yet they also have the smallest allocations (relatively speaking).
Likewise, not for profit, educational institutions, and governments
also respect the authority of ICANN.<br>
<br>
If you or anyone else would like to start up a private commercial IPv4
registry to register IPv4 addresses that are globally unique for
connection to a Global Private Commercial IPv4 Internet, I don't think
anyone will stop you. They may even encourage it to take the pressure
off the Public Internet.<br>
<br>
One simple reality is that some regions and countries have far higher
allocation rates of IPv4 addresses per head of population than others.<br>
<br>
The US has 41% of current IPv4 address allocations = 5.5 addresses per
head of population.<br>
See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bgpexpert.com/addressespercountry.php">http://www.bgpexpert.com/addressespercountry.php</a> for details.<br>
<br>
There are going to be an awful lot of people crying "foul," especially
if this market mechanism is only applied internally at ARIN level
(which relatively
speaking has the highest allocation rate per head of population in the
World). Where's their fair share?<br>
<br>
I therefore find it highly unlikely that you, or I, or anyone else,
will ever
ever gain consensus from the majority of current IPv4 Internet users
that in order to remain connected to the Public Internet,
or to grow their user base, they have to participate in a commercial
market to obtain the
right to be allocated an IPv4 address (whilst most users in some
countries have already been
allocated one or more "for free" on an "as-needed" basis).<br>
<br>
Any attempt to impose a commercial market on IPv4 addresses will very
likely result in the destruction of the general consensus that made the
Public Internet possible, and thus risk fragmentation or even
destruction of the Public Internet. In other words, attempting to
extract any monetary value from the scarcity of the IPv4 address space
is likely going to completely destroy the value of the Public IPv4
Internet, without ensuring any (smooth) transition to a single global
Public IPv6 Internet.<br>
<br>
<br>
As for the discussion on a (financial) incentive to move to IPv6:<br>
<br>
Seven alternatives straight off the top of my head that would achieve a
similar effect of adding a strong incentive to migrate to IPv6 would be:<br>
1) adopting an open market for IPv4 addresses<br>
2) CGN. It's going to be so awful that it will become the IPv6 killer
app.<br>
3) The US Federal government mandates it. If you want to do business
with them then you're going to comply. This is also already true in
India and China too.<br>
4) Ask Ben Bernanke to divert a small amount of money from the various
Federal Reserve's Open Market Operations schemes to buy up any IPv4
addresses that hit the market to create artificial scarcity and drive
up prices.<br>
5) The IETF could deprecate RFC 791 and move it to historic status.<br>
6) Allocate the last few IPv4 unallocated addresses and declare "game
over"<br>
7) Ask ARIN to prevent any and all transfers that are motivated purely
by financial gain, and instead insist that such participants return
IPv4 allocations to the unallocated pool "for their benefit of the
Internet Community" once the existing allocation is no longer needed.<br>
<br>
IMVHO 7) would be consistent with the historical policies of
"allocation on an as-needed basis" and would not require any
significant change to policy.<br>
<br>
I'm not attempting to influence the decision of the ARIN community in
any one particular direction, but the "free marketeers" certainly do
not have a monopoly on ideas, and I personally doubt whether a market
based approach is any more practical than the alternatives, no matter
how crazy they sound.<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
RayH<br>
<br>
Mike Burns wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CD7BFD4633884C38906A912D51912F12@mike" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="content-type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<style></style>
<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 face="Arial" size="2">>Ray Hunter</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Hi Ray,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Is it because there is confusion
over who actually "owns" the current IPv4 allocations today?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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 face="Arial" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.armware.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc1669.html">http://www.armware.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc1669.html</a></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Regards,</font></div>
<font face="Arial" size="2"></font>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><br>
Mike Burns</font></div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>