<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Good evening:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Un-utilised or under-utilised IPv4 address
blocks should be returned to the RIR in question for eventual
reallocation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It should be out of the question for any entities
to make a windfall gain from the somewhat arbitrary allocations of IPv4 address
blocks, years ago.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> the answer
to IPv4 scarcity </FONT> <FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>...</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>is
IPv6.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Regards,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>CW</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=cgrundemann@gmail.com href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">Chris
Grundemann</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=schnizlein@isoc.org
href="mailto:schnizlein@isoc.org">John Schnizlein</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org
href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter Delegates</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 24, 2008 8:35
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Chapter-delegates] scarcity
of IPv4 addresses</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I am not sure how I missed the conversation over the last six
weeks and I apologize for jumping into this "late" but I think that you may
want to conduct further evaluation before making a public stand. I have
been intimately involved in this discussion here in the ARIN region for over
six months now and I am definitely not convinced that creating a market is the
answer to IPv4 scarcity. In fact there are several very intelligent and
cluefull individuals who believe exactly the opposite, that an address market
will cause the collapse of the current RIR infrastructure due to government
intervention in many countries which could in turn splinter the Internet with
regionalized or nationalized government regulations that may not be compatible
across borders. This is not an issue that I believe you have a high
likelihood of being on the correct side of after 6 weeks of light
conversation, IMHO.<BR><BR>If members of this list are interested, I can
compile a fairly long list of reference material and documentation of the
views of folks on both sides of this issue. To start with, this decision
tree may be helpful to some who have not spent as much time thinking about
this issue yet as others have: <A
href="http://odin.chrisgrundemann.com/files/Do_I_Support_A_Liberalized_Transfer_Policy.jpg"
target=_blank>http://odin.chrisgrundemann.com/files/Do_I_Support_A_Liberalized_Transfer_Policy.jpg.
</A><BR><BR>For now I have added some quick comments to the points
below.<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:59 AM, John Schnizlein <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:schnizlein@isoc.org"
target=_blank>schnizlein@isoc.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Discussion
of this situation and how ISOC should stand on it has continued over the
roughly six weeks since I asked for discussion of it here. Thanks to
those who replied.<BR><BR>Please comment on the following draft ISOC
position.<BR><BR>John<BR><BR>1) ISOC believes there is no practical way to
prevent address<BR>transfers - so we advocate registering the
transfers.<BR><BR>Some member of Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) oppose
any transfer other than recovery of unused addresses to the RIR for
re-allocation. They oppose any opportunity for address holders to
profit from transfers as unfair. Anecdotes that (part of) companies
have already been traded in order to acquire address blocks they hold
suggest that this opposition is futile. Scarce resources become
valuable, and will be traded, either openly or secretly.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>A) The argument that "it is going to happen anyway" is a very week
one imho. Under this logic there should be no regulation at all because
there are sure to be those who will circumvent it.<BR><BR>B) Your brief
mention of dissenters is somewhat inaccurate. I have spoken to many
people who oppose IP address transfer markets and none of them have explained
there reasoning to be that making a profit is unfair. I think I can
fairly safely generalize most of these folks sentiment thus: An IP
address transfer market is a radically different approach which brings with it
many new challenges and risks and it has not been shown that the potential
benefits will surely outweigh those dangers.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR><BR>2)
The transfers need to be registered to preserve the integrity of<BR>who can
inject routes into the routing infrastructure - for IPv4 and
IPv6.<BR><BR>Ongoing problems with illegitimate routes being injected into
the global routing infrastructure (either by accident or due to malicious
intent) must be solved. We cannot envision any way to solve this
without knowing the current legitimate holder of address
prefixes.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I fully agree that WHOIS and other registry data must be
accurate. This starts with cleaning up the current data and then goes on
to maintaining it. This is a needed and noble cause that I am helping to
champion in the ARIN region currently. It has little to do with the
decision to create an IP market or not though. If the data is accurate,
illegitimate transfers will be harder to perpetrate. In order to hijack
a route, you must advertise it from your AS, this makes it very clear to
everyone who participates in Internet routing who is using what IPs, therefor,
the solution to the problem you raise is much more of a technical one than a
policy related one. Take a look at the RPKI and SIDR work going on now
in the IETF for the real answer.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR><BR>3)
ISOC opposes a central formal managed market that clears trades and
prices,<BR>for IPv4 addresses, but does not advocate barriers to
transactions between parties.<BR><BR>While there is potential value to
operating a central clearing for transactions, like a stock or commodity
market, especially open and transparent pricing, such a Market Maker would
be exposed to risks of a variety of charges of unfairness. It is
possible (but we do not consider it likely) that demand for such a market
will induce private market makers.<BR><BR>What might have justified RIRs
taking on those risks would be the need to assign addresses to fit routing
hierarchy. In such a market, prices for address blocks would depend on
the block size, but which actual address was allocated would depend on the
implications for the global route table as well as the offered price.
Instead of evidence that this is necessary, what we have found is that the
global route table is scrambled to accommodate traffic engineering and
multihoming already, and arbitrary transfers would not matter.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>A) While the RIRs have not done a _perfect_ job of stopping
aggregation, they have assigned addresses in a hierarchical fashion quite
well. This has done two things; one is that they have kept routing table
growth within the ability of routing hardware over time (iow, good enough) and
secondly, they have maintained the option of aggregation. Even though
many ISPs advertise smaller blocks for traffic engineering or other purposes
(avoiding hijacking, etc) they _could_ advertise much less
if the need arose and I believe there is value in this as we
approach IPv4 greenfield exhaustion.<BR>B) There is a second piece to
the hierarchical way RIRs have assigned and allocated addresses, and that is
the needs based component. This is not only to help prevent explosive
de-aggregation but also to preserve openness to new entrants. Transfers
done without the RIR supervision that we have seen during the IPv4 allocation
period have a high likely hood of allowing large incumbents to bar entry by
purchasing all available IPv4 early on and then not releasing it to new
entrants or growing but smaller competitors.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR><BR>4)
ISOC believes that transfers will extend the availabilty of IPv4 addresses
while<BR>IPv6 gets distributed. Gradual increases in the cost of
acquiring IPv4 addresses<BR>may incent network operators and developers to
deploy IPv6.<BR><BR>The belief that network operators would deploy IPv6 in
parallel (dual stack) with IPv4 while there were sufficient IPv4 addresses,
so that new IPv6-only hosts could reach everything, was wrong. There
was no economic incentive for operators to prepare for a future while there
were sufficient addresses. It is conceivable that operators with
sufficient contractual leverage on their suppliers and consumers could
undertake the costs of conversion to IPv6-only in order to realize the value
of IPv4 address space they would transfer.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>By many estimates, allowing transfers would only extend IPv4
availability by a few months if at all. Most of the large allocations
given out by the RIRs are to ISPs. It is not safe to assume that ISPs
will sell IPv4 space at any price because it is very likely that the buyer
will be a competing ISP or a potential customer. Why would I sell you
IPv4 space when I can rent it to you instead?<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>I would like to close by stating that I am not necessarily opposed to
the current ISOC position, I just want to make certain that all the
ramifications have been taken into consideration and that the specific agendas
of any individuals involved are made clear. The opinions I have
expressed here do not represent those of any other entity and may not even be
mine by the time you read them.<BR>~Chris<BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Chapter-delegates
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org"
target=_blank>Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</A><BR><A
href="http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates"
target=_blank>http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV><BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Chris Grundemann<BR><A
href="http://www.chrisgrundemann.com"
target=_blank>www.chrisgrundemann.com</A><BR><A
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann"
target=_blank>www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann</A><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Chapter-delegates
mailing
list<BR>Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org<BR>http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>