On 2/24/2014 6:33 AM, Bill Darte 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
I will yet again point out, as I'm sure others will as well, that it
hardly matters how large your soapbox when push comes to shove and
someone who has money and needs more IPv4 space figures out that there's
people willing to let them use other allocated space in exchange for
some of that money.
If you wanted the outcome you propose, you should have made IPv6
seamless to deploy and fully-featured for the people who need to deploy
it some years ago. (Note that there are still ongoing arguments about
the latter, to this very day)
Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
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.
