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
_______________________________________________
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.
