North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit

  • From: Raymond Macharia
  • Date: Wed Feb 20 02:31:00 2008

Policy, Regulations, Community support and ,yes that word again, Market all
factored in there are some things that would be noteworthy to look at

1. Where is the current demand for IPv4 coming from? Plenty of analysis
2. Can the new demand be steered towards IPv6 therefore slow down IPv4
depletion. For example in the developing world a lot of the demand is brand
new and therefore can it be satisfied with IPv6? Of course incentives are in
order though it's much easier than asking the behemoths to give up "their"
/16s etc.

Best Regards

Raymond Macharia 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric
Sent: 2008-02-20 05:20
To: David Conrad
Cc: John Curran; Nanog
Subject: Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit

David Conrad wrote:
> John,
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 11:40 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> I imagine that there are many potential outcomes.  For example,
>> in a world where ICANN/IANA (who seems to very much want to
>> be in charge of all this)
> This is almost amusing given the _mutually_ agreed role for ICANN/IANA 
> in address allocation, but I guess we all need our bogeymen.
>> actually did IP block revocation of unused
>> blocks per RFC2050, we'd likely not be having any discussion of a
>> relaxed transfer policy, as a result of the complete lack of need.
> To my knowledge, ICANN has neither the ability (given the mutual 
> agreements between ICANN and the RIRs) nor the desire to intrude upon 
> the RIR's bailiwick in this way.  I find it somewhat surprising that 
> after 10 or so years of trying to ensure ICANN didn't get into the 
> RIRs business that you're suggesting they do so now (I seem to 
> remember someone telling me "IANA should be a black box where the RIRs 
> crank the handle and /8s pop out, nothing more").
> However, this misses the point.
> The people who control the Internet address space are not the RIRs or 
> ICANN.  Control is vested in the ISPs who decide what is routed or not 
> routed.  In effect, the ISPs have agreed to use the RIRs as a neutral 
> meeting point to avoid negotiating a myriad agreements on who has the 
> right to announce what.  This only works as long as it is in the best 
> interests of most (in particular, the big parties) to play along.  As 
> soon as policies begin to impact those best interests negatively, the 
> policies will either be modified or ignored.  If they are ignored, the 
> vacuum will be filled by someone (whether a private entity or 
> governments/ITU isn't clear at this point).
> A market already exists.  Whether it is done by buying/selling a 
> company for its IP address assets or just simply buying the address 
> space outright and paying an ISP to not look at a RIR whois server 
> isn't particularly relevant.  As the IPv4 free pool exhausts, that 
> market is going to get much bigger, much faster.  It would be nice if 
> this market were somehow self-regulated by the industry players 
> involved since failing that implies something I suspect none of us 
> want. However, the current path appears to be to not do anything until 
> it is too late.
> Perhaps we could agree that not doing something until it is too late 
> would be bad?
>> Would the ISP community support adherence to RFC 2050 and
>> route accordingly?  It certainly has to date, and nearly every RIR
>> policy has been build accordingly.
> And IPv4 address space has been essentially free to date. That _is_ 
> changing as you well know.
>> It might result in some legal
>> work, but that's a small price to pay to further operational stability
>> of the Internet.
> As far as I can tell, the best way to ensure instability is for ISPs 
> and other address consuming organizations to continue ignoring the 
> issue.  Promoting the idea that 2050 is somehow still applicable to 
> the post IPv4 free pool world would seem to support that action.  Not 
> sure how that helps.
>> p.s.  ICANN seems to have no problem with asserting the
>>       informal DNS agreements from the same time period
>>       (with entire teams of lawyers) so maybe we just need
>>       to wait until they're free to pay attention to IP resources?
> I'm afraid you're confused.  The informal agreements I presume you're 
> referring to are national sovereignty issues and ICANN has essentially 
> no role (and certainly no role for ICANN's lawyers).  FWIW, ICANN's 
> lawyers are largely consumed in dealing with new, formal, contractual 
> agreements. However, continue to make spurious accusations, it 
> undoubtedly makes the various parties feel better.
> Regards,
> -drc
Agree with David.

If it isn't the structural change proposal (scrap the original 
constituencies for contractual and non-contractual, with subdivisions 
within contractual for type of contract, and within non-contractual for 
type of non-contractual), then no one who cares about the balance of 
power within the GNSO will give it a moment's thought. If it isn't IDN 
(more personal caveats than most), then no one who cares about ICANN's 
next couple of years will give it a moment's thought.

So, no. As fun as the v4 pool looks to be, the g-side, the cc-side, and 
the more-bits-than-7-side have wicked bigger fish to fry.

Have fun,