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

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

"John Schnizlein" <schnizlein at isoc.org> said:

> 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.

I have asked those questions on various forums and in various places. One
such place was at ICANN Paris & the other one was at IETF Dublin. Feedback
that I received was extremely diverse, although everyone seems to think that
some kind of aftermarket trading of IP addresses will end-up taking place.

> 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.

An interesting angle, which someone told me, was that perhaps IPv6 was
*willingly* not been deployed as quickly as IPv4 is being depleted. I was
rather surprised and asked why. My provocative correspondent told me that it
was all a matter of money. As soon as IPv4 addressing became expensive
enough, to play a significant part in an ISP or a user's budget, things
would move in the right direction by themselves. Perhaps this is how
migration will finally happen. Until then, and with scaremongers coming up
with large numbers relating to the cost of migration, few are ready to
proceed.

> 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).

IPv4 addresses on Ebay? An IPv4 stock market? Who knows?
What RIRs are doing is one thing. What IANA is doing is another. What the
market will do, I suspect, might be another, and it might not necessarily
be fair. Since traditionally there has not been any serious enforcement of
any IP routing policy by ICANN (I might be wrong), I am not sure what
kind of enforcement will take place.
I've learnt that some (rogue) ISPs are today already using IPv4 space that
they are not supposed to be using - for example, unallocated IP space, as
well as "reserved" space or unrouteable space. This introduces huge problems
when that IP space is then allocated officially because existing rogue 
routing
messes the whole integrity of those IP addresses. Will we risk more of this?
I don't know. My view is: prepare for the worst. SMTP mail never prepared
for SPAM and then it happened...

>
> 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.

I have a proposal that goes much further - and I suppose that many might
disagree with me - but since we know that ultimately IPv4 addressing space
will be subject to speculation (due to its nature as a limited ressource),
why not charge yearly fees for IPv4 addressing space, with the money
generated used to fund development of IPv6 as well as any new fundamental
development that might be required in the future? If you can *rent* IPv4
space, it makes buying it worthless.
In any case, I am concerned about the notion that IPv4 space could be sold &
purchased since it would establish a precedent that address blocks could be
owned, whereas I always thought that they were "on loan".

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

If ICANN had the will, determination & resources to do so, I would hope so.
Question is: is this within ICANN's job description?

> 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.

Might I suggest that you ask this question to the IETF (if you haven't
already)? I haven't got the time to look through all of their archives, but
likely working groups/lists might be v6ops, v4v6interim, ipv6...
>From memory, I recall a recent discussion relating to the size of BGP
tables & increasing complexity for routing v6 traffic on v4. Erratically
traded v4 chunks might be analogous in consequences.

>
> 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.

Honestly, I don't know how big the technical impact would be.
However Internet history has shown that:
1. the Net isn't populated only by "nice" people anymore.
2. "keep it simple, stupid" (KISS) stands a better chance to ensure
the Internet's integrity & stability.
Do we want to go down the route of IPv4 speculation? Is this to the
benefit of the Internet's growth? Does speculation fall in line with the
Internet's essential features? My vote goes for some kind of control
& enforcement to save the very founding principle of the Internet
which is to make it as open as possible for everyone.

I'd be also interested in hearing what others have to say here.

O.

-- 
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D.
E-mail:<ocl at gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html