<div dir="ltr">There are two classes of address users on the Internet.<div><br></div><div>1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow</div><div><br></div><div>2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow</div><div><br></div><div>In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if someone else buys all the </div><div>available IPv4 addresses.</div><div><br></div><div>In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough IPv4 addresses to make it </div><div>through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at least have a longer time </div><div>horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business impact of running out</div><div>of IPv4.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it through until the </div><div>date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before your competitors</div><div>you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content that your transit customers</div><div>desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to serve.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get you through transition </div><div>or more than your competitor (which ever is less).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need addresses for growth have already </div><div>secured enough to get them through transition. (If that was the case we wouldn't be having this</div><div>discussion.)</div><div><br></div><div>Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board transfers that they cannot </div><div>currently justify under ARIN policy. Certainly some have decided not to secure a future in IPv4 </div><div>addresses because the risk is too high. Certainly some have limited their activities because of </div><div>the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about IPv6 adoption time lines, </div><div>uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen other things. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that could be made available have</div><div>already been made available.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not secured enough IPv4 addresses </div><div>to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption.</div><div><br></div><div>Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses available on the market for the </div><div>right price.</div><div><br></div><div>Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could be returned and made</div><div>available through the current mechanisms. </div><div><br></div><div>Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of below board transfers </div><div>and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can justify for the </div><div>next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior where </div><div>organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential access to IPv4 </div><div>addresses for potential future need over organizations that need addresses now </div><div>(or in the next two year time horizon)? </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>__Jason</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at" target="_blank">matthew@matthew.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 6/3/2015 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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:<br>
1. Competitive advantage<br>
2. Anticompetitive practices<br>
3. Price gouging<br>
4. Market manipulation<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
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".<br>
<br>
Things that stand in the way:<br>
1. There isn't an "unlimited" amount of address space<br>
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)<br>
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.<br>
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!<br>
<br>
And because those organizations have the space they need for their own purposes, none of the things you are worried about can matter:<br>
<br>
Competitive advantage? Anticompetitive practices? Doesn't really work against competitors who already have space.<br>
<br>
Price gouging? Market manipulation? Can't do that to people who already have the space they need.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font></div>
</div>