[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Iljitsch,

On 10/29/07 2:15 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:
>>> About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the
>>> routing table.
>> Which, of course, means precisely nothing.
> The value of an IP address is the ability to receive packets from
> elsewhere addressed to it. Without a presence in a routing table
> someplace, that doesn't happen so the IP address is of no value.

The fact that _you_ can't see a routing announcement for a particular prefix
does NOT mean the prefix isn't announced somewhere.  There are these things
called "private networks" and they do interconnect outside of the context of
the "public" Internet.

>>> Trading something that's in demand but has no supply
>>> will lead to hoarding, reducing availability or at the very least
>>> making it unpredictable.
> 
>> The address space in question is already allocated, hence  unavailable.  The
>> question is how to incent folks to put their "allocated but unused"  address
>> space back into play.
> 
> Your assumption is that the value of having more addresses
> automatically outweighs any negative consequences from having a
> market. 

Well, no.  I'm not actually making that assumption.  I make the assumption
that markets are going to exist regardless of whether folks stamp their feet
and pout about their existence.  The fact that long prefixes will
undoubtedly be made available could have potential negative implications, no
question.  However, it would seem best to try to address (pun intended) that
issue directly instead of pointlessly trying to address it indirectly by
commanding the tide to not come in.

> It requires herculian effort to keep the up-and-coming
> economies happy with the way the internet is currently "run" (if there
> is such a thing).

Actually, it doesn't.  Your view is somewhat condescending.  Folks in
developing countries are as involved in the way the Internet is currently
"run" (in terms of setting address policy) and are as aware of the issues as
are folks in developed countries.

> What is the developing world going to say when they
> have to pay rich American companies for address space--address space
> that those companies got for free?

They will be unhappy.  Perhaps a bit less unhappy than being told "it is
impossible to obtain any additional address space, period", but perhaps not.
The reality is that the IPv4 address space is running out and as long as
there is continued demand for IPv4 address space, there are going to be
people who are able to obtain address space and some who will not,
regardless of the mechanisms of redistribution.

> What if a slow trickle of expensive IPv4 addresses is just enough to
> keep people from moving to IPv6, but at the same time stiffling the
> industry both technically by deeper and deeper layers of NAT and
> economically because it takes longer and longer and costs more and
> more to get new IP addresses for new businesses?

I would imagine the increased cost of IPv4 would likely be a major driver
towards IPv6 -- it actually gives people a reason to migrate to IPv6 (as
opposed to the current situation).

> There are STILL people that refuse to bother implementing IPv6 in
> their products, 

And WHY are they not implementing IPv6?  Because there is no customer
demand.  Why is there no customer demand? Because IPv6 provides no technical
incentive over IPv4.  Since there are no technical incentives, it would seem
the next best option is financial incentives.  What is your alternative?

> making it that much harder for their customers to
> adopt IPv6 in the next three years that we can reasonably sure about
> having current levels of IPv4 availability. Anything that these people
> can use as an excuse to wait even longer is extremely harmful.

The cost of obtaining IPv4 will go up, regardless of the mechanism used to
obtain address space.  The cost of obtaining IPv6 will remain low.  This
will naturally encourage folks to investigate whether IPv6 can meet their
connectivity needs.
 
Regards,
-drc