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

On 9 okt 2008, at 12:44, <michael.dillon at bt.com>  
<michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

With apologies  for the late respond due to a  holiday

>> 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.


An unpredictable price might me make people scratch their head a bit  
more or think over the business case again, I don't think it will stop  
them from entering. The price of oil (and other related products like  
natural gas) is also largely unpredictable, the only thing you can  
really say is that, as we slowly run out the price will go up. Yet in  
the end people are buying new stuff and investing in new plants which  
largely depend on these resources, while there are alternatives (sun/ 
wind/water) available which have a much more predictable pricing  
scheme, moslty the (higher) build cost.

Consider the choise between IPv4/IPv6 largely the same, go for the  
easy way and hanle the increasing cost or go with 'renewable'  
resources like IPv6. As  stated before, I don't like the idea of a  
market, but I would rather see some policy in place before it goes  
underground. Should, like you stated in earlier discussions, no market  
arise because there are no (large) sellers, we might have wasted some  
time. But better safe then sorry.

Groet,

MarcoH