On Feb 24, 2014, at 5:23 PM, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:

> I object to the viewpoint that we should use policy to confuse things so that 
> IPv6 is more attractive sooner.  There are systemic risks with IPv4 runout 
> and inflexibility prior to IPv6 being fully baked in the works-for-everyone 
> sense.  The time to have made those adjustments was 2008 or so, not now.

I don’t believe that is what Bill suggested. I believe he stated that mucking 
with policy to make the market artificially attractive would harm the 
transition process.

> If we're going to go back to recent history for economic lessons, the Fed 
> letting Lehman Brothers crash is a good one.  They were trying to make a 
> couple of points, too, but the collateral damage nearly caused a depression…

IMHO, failing to let a number of the others collapse and not dismantling those 
that were propped up was the bigger mistake.

Owen

> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -george william herbert
> [email protected]

_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to