This, too. Owen
On Feb 24, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Bill Darte <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll not answer for Owen, but your question prompts me to say that the > transfer market is not a goodness. It was, in my mind, a reasonable yet > distasteful stop gap on the way toward a once again more unified protocol > environment...to wit.. IPv6. > > My market theory suggest that transfer market at its free-est and most open > deters and confuses the way forward. The purpose of standards is to > eliminate confusion and choices which require understanding investment > options and application consequences. While standards have their downside, > one of them is not those elements of marketplace choice. > > The more options existing the more confused. Investment=legacy. End-users > must predict and interpret, making decisions that may come back to haunt. > Developers delay their innovation in order to better understand whether > they're investing in a blind technology. Transport providers must deploy and > support more complicated configurations with their limited funds, inevitably > satisfying some an thwarting others. > > Would that the transfer market and all efforts to prolong IPv4 come to an end > quickly IMO. > > End of soapbox > > bd > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:13 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 24, 2014, at 5:20 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:32 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ... > >> I've been thinking about this maybe the restrictions for anti-flipping > >> don't belong in section 8 at all. Maybe they belong in section 4 as they > >> are intended to protect the ARIN IPv4 free pool. > > > > I disagree. I don’t want to see flipping become a tool for speculation in > > the market post-exhaustion, any more than I want to see it become a tool > > for draining the free pool. In fact, I think that the former might be > > significantly more harmful than the latter at this point. > > Owen - > > Could you elaborate your thoughts regarding the harm that might occur? > > I believe that folks understand risks associated with sudden/unexpected > IPv4 free > pool depletion, but you are suggesting that liquidity itself in the IPv4 > transfer > market is harmful. As that is neither obvious nor aligned with most market > theory, > it would be best for you to elaborate your thoughts some on that aspect. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
