In this discussion about "large ISPs", it is important to separate organizations into two categories:
1. Those that hold only legacy address space 2. Those that may (or may not) hold legacy address space, and also a direct allocation / assignment from ARIN. 1. In the case of the former it is possible that they acquired classfull addressing, and gotten 120 or so extra /16s, based on the then understanding of efficient use, and routability. Assuming slow growth and a supply of addresses that will not be used before most of the Internet supports IPv6, then yes these organizations have a competitive advantage. (These organizations also happen to be the ones with the greatest potential to benefit monetarily from entering into an agreement to transfer IPs.) In the case of the former with faster growth, where their remaining legacy addresses represent two years or less of available growth, then there is no advantage. 2. In the case of the latter, they have already exceeded their legacy address holdings, and have had to return to ARIN for additional address space. Since that time they have had to demonstrate efficient use of all of their address space (including legacy space) prior to getting additional space. These organizations can only have a single quarter supply of addresses. The only caveat is if the organization's growth has declined. In that case what was one quarter may now be a year. Or if they are loosing (and continue to loose) customers, no new addresses should be needed. Organizations who are not growing or actively loosing their customer base does not create a business threat to a competing provider that is facing a future in ability to grow. The two year's need test for transfers opens these ranges above to eight times larges, but is essentially the same argument. ___Jason On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:25 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns <m...@nationwideinc.com> wrote: > >>> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of > >>> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free, > which > >>> provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities > seeking > >>> to purchase addresses at a much higher relative price. > >> > >> Yes, it has been argued. It hasn't necessarily been substantiated, nor > has > >> anyone raising said argument provided any real evidence to support it. > > > > Of course the incumbent's assets offer a competitive advantage over > > the challenger. With such a prima facie case, the burden rests on who > > disagree to disprove it. > > That's a different argument. > > The original argument was that larger ISP's resources somehow had a > competitive advantage over the resources held by smaller ISPs. > > I don't believe that this has been proven or constitutes a prima facie > case. > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschil...@google.com|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.