[Chapter-delegates] scarcity of IPv4 addresses

[John Schnizlein]

answers embedded in context other stuff trimmed:

On 2008Oct25, at 1:18 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
> as you know, I have taken quite an interest in IPv4 & IPv6 matters.

Yes, thank you.

> My answers/comments inline:
>
> From: "John Schnizlein" <schnizlein at isoc.org>
>
>> 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.
>> ...
>> 2) The transfers need to be registered to preserve the integrity of
>> who can inject routes into the routing infrastructure - for IPv4 and
>> IPv6.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Who will enforce this? Bearing in mind we are already seeing IP  
> address
> squatters and nothing is being done about them, who will act as the  
> IP police?

The best hope IMHO is the RPKI effort being considered in the SIDR WG
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sidr-charter.html

>> 4) ISOC believes that transfers will extend the availabilty of
>> IPv4 addresses while IPv6 gets distributed.  Gradual
>> increases in the cost of acquiring IPv4 addresses
>> may incent network operators and developers to deploy IPv6.
>>
>> 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.
>
> By "gradual increases" are you suggesting that IPv4 addressing  
> should be
> charged by the RIRs? Otherwise we'll see IPv4 address cost  
> speculation and
> I doubt that this would be a "gradual increase".
> This section, IMHO, is ambiguous.

Yes, the point that transfers will extend IPv4 for a little more dual- 
stack time
is obscured by my speculation (pun intended) that costs would increase  
gradually.

No, we found no consensus that the RIRs should manage markets, either by
increases charges, or by paying for return of addresses.  We have seen  
the idea.
The biggest problem I see with this idea is that it risks  
investigation and regulation of
what would look (even more because of pricing) like a monopoly  
enterprise.

Yes, price speculation is possible in an unregulated market for IPv4  
address blocks.
This speculation could, as your doubt suggests, increase volatility in  
such a market.
We (staff) think that the risks of RIRs operating managed markets  
outweigh the benefits
of reducing (it is not possible to eliminate) these risks.  We also  
hope the market does not
last very long because increasing prices send a clear signal to  
convert to IPv6.

John