[Chapter-delegates] What to do about IPv4 address scarcity

Mon Sep 8 10:50:31 PDT 2008

Hello John Schnizlein,

My comments at # in the body of the message.

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:06 PM, John Schnizlein <schnizlein at isoc.org> wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> As you may know, IANA's free pool of IPv4 addresses is expected to be
> depleted within the next few years. I would like to understand more
> about  what people around the world expect the impact of IPv4 address
> depletion to be. Your thoughts on this topic would be very helpful.
>
> When the IANA pool is used up, the allocation pools held by the RIRs
> will also begin to deplete. From then, until IPv6 is fully deployed
> across the globe, there is a reasonable expectation that people will
> experience a scarcity of IPv4 addresses. While the discussions and
> development of policies for handling allocations are appropriately
> taking place in RIR policy forums, I would like to get a broader
> understanding of some of the different perspectives from around the
> globe.
>
> The scarcity of IPv4 addresses has long been expected. Indeed, it was
> one of the motivations for the design of IPv6 fifteen years ago.
> However, IPv4 address scarcity is likely to become more problematic
> than expected because IPv6 is not being deployed as quickly as IPv4
> addresses are being allocated.

# Traditionally a scarcity is a desirable situation in business. If not by
design - that would be far fetched or even entirely wrong to say that - at
least by subconscious lack of action, the address space resellers would
exhibit insufficient drive to transition to IPV6. During APNIC 24 / SANOG in
New Delhi there was some hint of a possibility of recalling unused IPV4
addresses so that these addresses can be reallotted to ISPs on demonstration
of a queue, based on the size of the queue. (In recalling unused address
spaces some process needs to be established to ascertain if the allocations
reported are real or merely created for the record to hold on to a buffer
"stock" of IPV4 address spaces.) This would help both manage the anticipated
shortfall in address space as also by providing the necessary compulsions
for the address space businesses to promote IPV6. Another strategy that
could go along with this measure is to simultaneously be liberal with IPV6
allocations so as to create a situation whereby IPV6 spaces are freely
available while IPV4 addresses go through the inevitable "bureaucracy" using
the term in a constructive sense.

>
>
> Because the Internet will not stop on the day the last IPv4 address
> from the free pool is handed out,  it is clear that network operators
> will exchange address blocks (more than they may be now), as those
> that have spare addresses provide them to those that need more.
>
> Given that the scarcity of any resource increases its perceived value,
> these exchanges are likely to be transactions involving money.  If any
> market is to evolve, it needs to be fair and not damage the routing
> infrastructure of the Internet (such as by promoting the exchange of
> very small address prefixes).

It would be difficult to monitor if the transactions are fair. If there are
rules announced to govern these transactions, business will always find a
way to confirm to rules on paper but circumvent them  in a manner that it
can't be legally challenged. Today, even yesterday when there was no
perceptible shortfall of IPV4 addresses, at least one or two ISPs I have
dealt with as a customer, bundled IPV4 addresses in their internet service
plans in such a way that if I required an IPV4 address as a static address I
would commit to pay as much as $500 a month (an entry level subscription
plan for an internet connection with a static address and usually there are
much higher plans) The price, on paper, is not for the IPV4 address but for
a "dedicated internet connection".  Such practices are bound to become even
more opportunistic in a situation of real or perceived shortage of IPV4
addresses.

> Achieving complete fairness may be impossible in either an open or
> managed market.  The opinion that any trade of IPv4 addresses unfairly
> rewards those who got their allocations early would have to be
> considered.  Fairness in a market for IPv4 addresses would require a
> clear statement that the value of IPv4 addresses is ephemeral – that
> the common goal is to make the value of IPv4 addresses zero by
> converting everything to IPv6.

Till IPV6 is widely adopted, even IPV4 address space value ought to be
converted to zero and that could be achieved by recalling unused address
spaces and reallocating them on demonstrable demand.

>
>
> With that goal in mind, is there a way that money from transferring
> IPv4 addresses could fund development of IPv6?

Yes that is a brilliant idea. Today's internet technology makes it possible
to sell it direct to the user online. So why not set up a website to sell
the scarce IPV4 addresses with different price plans for ISPs / resellers /
end users ? This is an alternate idea to be considered as against the idea
of reducing the value to zero. Please take a look at the current price of an
address space as shown above, which is anyway paid out by the end user.

>
>
> One reason that a market for IPv4 addresses might need to be managed
> is to preserve the constraint on growth of (default free) route tables
> produced by provider-allocated addresses, which has been essential to
> protecting the global routing infrastructure.  If address prefixes
> from one region are advertised on another continent, what is the
> impact on Internet route tables?  Please send pointers to any
> research, especially numerical estimates, on this.

I have a more micro-question here. At present, if I have an internet
connection from ISP ABC, I need to get my address allocated by this ISP.
What if get my address space from ISP XYZ but choose to buy the connection
from ABC? Or what if I buy my address space direct from ICANN and go to ISP
ABC for an internet connection for hosting bandwidth? Is this kind of
"portability" possible and if possible is portability conceded to users at
present?

>
>
> Market controls need justification, especially on an Internet where
> openness is the essential feature. So, if the impact that trading has
> on routing tables is not huge (considering the multihoming and traffic
> engineering de-aggregation), allowing it to occur may be more cost
> effective than trying to administer market constraints designed to
> control it. If you are aware of any research on this specialized topic
> then I would particularly appreciate your recommendations.
>
> While I welcome comments on this subject at any time, it would be most
> helpful if discussion (on this list) converges before the end of
> September, in time for the policy discussions to be held in the ARIN
> and RIPE policy meetings in October.

Once again, being receptive to the idea of inevitable revenues from IPV4
with the broad cause of funding IPV6 transition is desirable.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
ISOC India Chennai
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy

>
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20080908/4ef04cef/attachment.htm>