[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Tom Vest wrote:

> The only question -- and the one that people seem to be unwilling to 
> engage -- is whether this particular prohibition was always inherently 
> silly or rather important in its own right, whether the infraction to be 
> legalized was/is trivial or truly dangerous.

This strikes me as a generalization arising from a false premise - namely
that the external environment has not changed in any manner, and the change
is purely a change in the manner in which the address distribution function
occurs. Of course that is simple not the case here, which becomes apparent
in looking at the question you then posed:

> 
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps 
> 
> 
> Was Yakov always wrong? Has something changed to make him less wrong today?

Was Yakov always wrong? no

Is he less "wrong" today - dunno - he was right back then, but the environment
HAS changed, so the "less wrong" question is rather irrelevant isn't it?

As most folk on this planet are aware (and elsewhere too these days, considering
the level of air play of this particular story :-) ), the environmental shift 
from the perception of abundance in IPv4 addresses at the time to a current perception
of scarcity and looming exhaustion is a massive change in our environment.
This percpetion is now driving industry behaviours, and I'd claim that the
steady increasing address allocation rates over the past 2 - 3 years are not
unconnected with this shift in perception.

The observations that apparently drive much of today's consideration are:

- this industry is just too large, too diverse and too bound to low margin
  commodity operations for much of it's Internet activities to drive (and fund)
  the completion a comprehensive transition to IPv6 within the timeframe 
  available as defined by the remaining IPv4 unallocated address pools. The 
  demand for addresses, as defined by the prevailing needs-based address
  distribution policies and the associated industry demand levels, appears
  to extend beyond the anticipated point of exhaustion of the current supply system.

- this implies that there will be a continuing need for IPv4 addresses after the
  RIR pool has exhausted within this industry.

- It is also observed that there is considerable diversity in the current
  value of "use" of addresses today, and it is likely that this broad
  diversity of exploitative value of addresses will persist.

It appears that in this case once the existing supply mechanisms have been 
exhausted, then the supply mechanisms to meet the continued demand will come
from existing holders of address space. Its also pretty clear that such supply
mechanisms will not meet every last possible demand, so a regime of scarcity-based
redistribution will eventuate to equilibriate supply and demand. In such scarcity-based
redistribution mechanisms, those applications that place a higher exploitative value
on IPv4 addresses would be capable of making a case to transfer addresses from
an existing address holder who has a lower value associated with the addresses.
This equilibriation is conventionally based on establishing a valuation point whereby
the residual demand levels can be met in that those demands where the exploitative
value is still higher that the valuation point will be satified, and those who have
placed a lower valuation on meeting their demand will seek substitutes.

Now all of this would be irrelevant if we were still in an environment
of abundance - all those who had a case for addresses, whatever the exploitative value
each party places on the addresses, could be met, in which case you get back
to the proposition that the only residual 'value' of a particular address over any other
is the relative ease with which it is routed - which is what Yakov's slide pack is effectively
saying.

But this is all basic theory of markets, isn't it Tom. I don't I've said a single thing
about market valuation, exploitative values and substitution that isn't in any
standard text on the theory of markets!

Is routing so fragile that addresses cannot move at all? I think not.

Is IPv6 so busted and NATs just so unworkable that any form of substitution is completely
untenable? I think not. 

Are there addresses out there that are unused, or used in contexts where subtitution may
take place? I believe so.

So I'm left with a question or two back to Tom via this list: Why do you think that in this
case the conventional mechanisms that we've use explicitly or implicitly to equilibriate 
demand, supply and substitution within human activity sectors for, oh, 
a millenium or five, in times of scarcity of supply and competing demands have to be
suspended and some magic substituted in its place just for IPv4 addresses? 

And the second question is: Equally I'm really unclear what you see as the alternative
framework to use here to address the situation. Do you believe that there are credible
alternative approaches that do not involve the movement of IPv4 addresses between
entities beside the "lets do a complete IPv6 transition in the next 24 months across
the entire globe" approach?


  Geoff