On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:37:49AM -0800, John Gilmore wrote: > Steven Bakker <steven.bak...@ams-ix.net> wrote: > > > ... the gain is 4 weeks of > > > extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption. > > > > The burn rate is the best argument I've seen against the idea so far. > > I'm glad you think so, since it's easy to refute. [snip] > Now that has ended, and addresses actually cost money in a real market. [snip more market market market]
"Ended" is an interesting word, given distributions continue from the RIRs (eg https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/ipv4/waiting_list/) as resources are available. Should any one of these ...imaginative schemes come to pass and drop shiny new v4 space into the IANA hopper, please do point to the policy where they would be distributed in a manner inconsistent with the RIR system, as your post focused on the secondry transfer market. The transfer market came into being as a tool to unlock stranded rights to use prefixes and a (too mild) friction to nudge IPv6 adoption. Should a pile of v4 be magically made available not from existing stranded rights, the expectation that somehow the market would be involved is odd to say the least. I would expect if this vein of "decades" of v4 were mined, the transfer market should correctly react as any other supply/demand system and prices would drop. Any presumptions about "burn rate influenced by pre-exhaustion land rush" should be sure to compare hard-landing (ARIN) and soft-landing RIRs. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
