[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[John Curran]

On Oct 14, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Alan J Maitland wrote:

> Mr. Curran,
> 
> Thank you for the PDF link you listed in your attached, it was a good 
> read (and was also wonderfully cited).  It seems clear that the IPV4 
> address space is hugely challenged as regards its availability for 
> allocations (and I gather also for reallocation), but for IPV6, is 
> there a chance to create the markets to which your document 
> refers?  In doing so, perhaps one might solve a number of issues the 
> document raises.
> 
> For example, one might coax some of the holdouts on what appears to 
> be holders of grandfathered IPV4 space into trading that IPV4 space 
> off for some IPV6 space.

We currently have very wide open IPv6 policies right now, to the extent
that nearly any holder of IPv4 space can get an IPv6 allocation asap.
Also, as described, we have the specified transfer policy, which does 
result in parties being incentivized to free up little-used address 
space and put back into the system. (Reference the ARIN website
at https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html to see these policies.)
I'm not saying the additional policies aren't needed or welcome;
just bringing the existing ones to your attention.  You can find
information on how to propose new policies in that same section
of the website.

> Though the point made regarding IPV6 as being finite is clearly true, 
> IPV6 still represents a huge increase in the available address space 
> to be allocated for and to the Internet community.  Given its size, 
> perhaps it could be divided up into grouped allocations as a 
> compromise to all parties involved.  For example, something like 
> "reserved space", "allocated space" and "free market space", made 
> available to allocation as groups such as ARIN, the RIRs and 
> governing political bodies see fit or as otherwise makes sense.

Yes, and no - see below.

> Echoing a point expressed earlier in this thread, perhaps a strong 
> focus and push toward moving IPV6 migration and implementation 
> forward would seemingly diminish the pain associated with the ever 
> shrinking IPV4 space.

The move to IPv6 will definitely help reduce this pain, and is 
something that all of the RIRs, ICANN, and ISOC are aggressively
trying to encourage.  The real issue that we'll run into with IPv6 
is the opposite problem: an abundance of addresses so large that 
having an assignment becomes nearly meaningless compared to the 
value of getting it routed.  The real value of the Regional Internet
Registries in this environment is not purely in issuing addresses
but in having the community forums which allow open discussion 
of what is acceptable for new allocations (and therefore entitled
to be uniquely routed globally).  Wrote a paper about that as well, 
when the idea that registries being somehow valuable independent 
of their policy framework came up with the ITU promoted theory of 
Country Internet Registries (CIRs) -
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487289/ARIN-Contribution-to-ITU-T-IPv6-Study-Group>

For those who really love market approaches, all you really need is a market 
for obtaining global routing table slots for IPv6 prefixes and then we quite
literally could have hundreds of registries of all shapes and sizes (maybe
even including vending machines, as a wise man once suggested). The cost of 
obtain unique numbers would be appropriately low given it's relative abundance 
with IPv6 (now everyone can be a registry! :-)  

Folks who used addresses under their ISP's prefix would incur no additional 
cost, and those that wanted "portability" would pay routing their unique prefix 
in the global routing table ($$)  Establishing such a global market for routing 
table slots is left as an exercise to the reader, and we have now fully left 
behind any and all discussion of "Internet History" (and should perhaps move 
the discussion elsewhere... :-)

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN