On Jun 6, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Larry, > > "Personally I suspect that without needs testing the "haves" would have had > it all a long time ago. > I have felt the same frustration, as a small provider, trying to meet the 80% > requirement can be almost > impossible without gaming the system due to numerous small holes in a small > allocation. > That said, I worry about any company that could purchase a couple of Billion > dollars of IPV4." > > What is being expressed here is a fear of hoarding in the absence of a needs > test. A couple of billion dollars of IPv4 at current prices would yield about > 15 /8s. Even if some company wanted to risk those funds with IPv6 transition > threatening to erase them, there is no single seller who could offer 15 /8s, > nor would the sequestration of 15 /8s destroy the market, since this amount > represents just 25% of the estimated market size of 1 billion addresses. > Since the buyer and seller will be disclosed and registered under any > no-needs policy, there is little threat of a stealthy move here, and any > buyer seeking to corner or manipulate the market knows he does so at the > peril of forcing the IPv6 transition. The best protection against this is > continued work towards IPv6 and the establishment of a reliable, open, and > global IPv4 market with at least the same level of transparency into > registration as we have now. As a broker, I actively sought out speculators > to bid for addresses in the Nortel sale. This was a prime opportunity to > acquire 660,000 addresses at the floor of the market, but it was regarded as > too risky by almost all. In the intervening years I became aware of other > opportunities to acquire address space without needs tests, but I never found > anybody interested in buying addresses on pure speculation. In any case, this > fear can only reasonably be expressed in the context of a complete removal of > needs tests, and could not be applied to a more limited removal of the needs > test such as that proposed in 2014-14.
Finding 4 actors who want to corner the market probably wouldn’t be very hard. Since 25% is 1/4 of the projected market size, I would say that the rest of your argument is on pretty shaky ground. > "Many of us fear that if need is not considered in the transfer market the > little guys will find that none is available at any price." > > We are three years into the open, post-Microsoft/Nortel market and there is > no evidence of hoarding in my experience. I have never fielded a phone call > or email from any company or individual seeking addresses they didn't plan to > utilize at some point, although I have fielded plenty from people seeking > addresses that for whatever reason ARIN policy would prohibit them from > registering. Perhaps other brokers on the list might report on their > experiences. Address space is still available nearly for free from ARIN, especially for smaller organizations, so this isn’t a real test of what will happen post runout and any claim that it is is absurd. > "Like it or not the big guys have an advantage. Let's make sure that > "cornering the market" isn't one of them." > > Little guys benefit from the dropping of needs test for small transfers. No > need to navigate the ARIN process if you just need a /24 and you can't get > one from your upstream, or not at a reasonable cost, or because you feel more > secure with your own space, or because you don't wish to game the system. > Support of 2014-14 would allow small companies to have this option while > preventing hoarding or speculation through limits on size and number of > transfers. Perhaps you care to comment on whether you might consider support > of 2014-14 at the current size of /16 or at another size that you might feel > more appropriate? Again, this is your perspective, but it’s not necessarily entirely true. It’s only true if you assume that the market will have a continuous supply and demand will be lower than supply. I would argue that the number of inter-RIR transfers to the APNIC region which have already been processed would indicate that after exhaustion, this is unlikely to be a persistent state or even last very long at all. Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
