Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

["Jeffrey A. Williams" jwkckid1@localhost]

Michael and all,

  Good arguments here Michael!  And I agree, this proposed
transfer policy is a very bad idea for the reasons you gave
and much more.  Creating a Casino for IPv4 addresses is
a recipe that may bleed over to IPv6 if the profit aspect is
attractive enough, not to mention perhaps bleeding over
to the application layer developers in pricing schemes.

michael.dillon@localhost wrote:

> > You are deliberately forestalling the possibility of new
> > entrants getting any IPv4 after exhaustion, never mind
> > existing operators for whom IPv4 pays employees' salaries. Is
> > this the right tradeoff for the industry?
>
> New entrants typically want to see predictable prices or else
> they simply don't enter. Currently, the price for IPv4 addresses
> is predictable. After a transfer scheme is in place, and speculators
> take up the remaining free pool, the price of IPv4 will be wildly
> unpredictable. That situation will block new entrants.
>
> However, there is another aspect which involves IPv6. Large ISPs are
> already deploying IPv6 trials in order to be prepared for the day
> when they cannot grow their networks with IPv4. That day will probably
> come a bit sooner, when the price of IPv4 addresses skyrockets due
> to limited supply. But here's where it impacts potential new entrants.
>
> The large ISPs are not deploying IPv6 for a completely separate
> Internet.
> We are all including technology to allow the interoperating of the
> IPv4 and the IPv6 Internet, because we want to be able to connect
> customers using pure IPv6 networks, and still allow those customers
> to have full access to the IPv4 Internet. This means, that a new entrant
> into the Internet business, can realistically use IPv6 technology
> and expect to be able to buy full connectivity to all IPv4 and IPv6
> Internet sites from one of the larger ISPs. The price for IPv6 addresses
> is predictable (zero) and the price for the IPv6 service will also
> be predictable since it is being sold in a competitive market. It is
> highly likely that ISPs will offer IPv6 connectivity at a lower price
> than IPv4 connnectivity because it reduces the pressure on their
> legacy IPv4 infrastructure.
>
> Rejecting any and all policy changes which enable a market for IPv4
> addresses, does not lead to blocking new entrants. It may, in fact,
> create greater opportunities for new entrants since they will be
> able to avoid the costs and complexity of supporting both v4 and v6.
> They will leave that to the larger upstream ISPs, but at the same
> time they will be able to pay less than an IPv4 entrant would pay.
> This seems like a win-win situation all around.
>
> Please reject this transfer policy.
>
> --Michael Dillon

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@localhost
My Phone: 214-244-4827