[rpd] Some thoughts, and some actions required

[C. Adams John]

Hi

2016-02-07 16:00 GMT+01:00 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>:

>
> On 7 Feb 2016 13:02, "jcadams0304" <jcadams0304 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Supply and demand.
> >
> > If there is an need, and someone willing to pay for that need, there
> always supply.
> >
> > Legalise only make things cheaper, does not change the fact about demand
> always will be satisfied regardless the legislation.
> >
> > 1930s US banned alcohol, the only effectiveness of such legislation is
> making everyone supplies alcohol happy because now same product ten times
> the price.
> >
> > According to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States, doctors
> made over 40m USD(600M USD in today's money) in whiskey prescription. Mafia
> group made much more, in fact, legalise Alcohol later on was opposed and
> lobbied continuing the ban by mafia group who selling alcohols.
> >
> > Same goes for the transfer market, if you think anyone selling IP is
> evil, then forbidding a transfer policy only make the price higher for them
> to sell, in which, make the person who selling it happier.
> >
> > Policy only do so such to the reality, same goes for laws, there is not
> a single country on this planet you can not buy weed, while only a few
> legalised them.
> >
> >
>
> IP addresses are not weed or alcohol.
>
> No tranfer market, means no one can sell out even if they had  redundant
> resources as there is no policy that allows it thus rendering the whole
> thing illegal....
>

illegal only makes it more expensive to buy, just like weed.

> Secondly there is no big market for IP addresses outside there as some
> folk want to make it seem so as to make folks worry that once we run out we
> wont run business just because there is no transfer market.... there are
> some work arounds when when get there....
>
The market has quite a big size. Reportedly few /8 has been sold aside from
the already published RIR transfers.

We won't run out of business, like I said, there will always be supply to
the demand, as long as you are paying for it.

Without transfer policy the supply are simply more expensive. (1.95
USD/MONTH for legacy space renting for example).

As for the work around, both CGNs and some other solutions are proven not
cheaper than the legitimate transfer market to date.

> Why invent IPv6 and then champion its adoption.... In anycase stick to the
> new model as the old model runs out of supply.
>

Running a pure IPv6 network for most business are still commercially
impossibly, as I quota from the Harvard study

"Thus, even though RFC 1883 formalized the successor technology IPv6 in
1996, networks have had little to no economic incentive to move to IPv6,
nor any market-based economic incentive to use or transfer IPv4 resources
efficiently. Meanwhile, because IPv4 resources are inherently portable,
experiments in one region tend to affect behavior elsewhere—limiting the
potential for regional innovation. Here too, we are reminded of experience
in other markets. For example, the spectrum market quickly grew from
non-existent to huge (due to a regulatory action creating the market). For
lack of practitioners bringing decades of experience tinkering and
fine-tuning, economists were distinctively important in designing that
market. The same may prove true for IPv4 addresses"

So let's say I have 100K IP sitting around somewhere not in use, after
runout, Egypt telecom needs more IP, with a transfer policy, they can get
it from me for 5 USD/IP, forever, because if I want to sell them at 7 USD,
my US competitor would come in and offer 5.

However, without transfer policy, then that's another story, if I am smart
enough, I will simply sub-allocate Egypt telecom my 100K space and charge
them 10USD/year/IP, without transfer policy, I will be owning IP
practically forever(and legitimately within current policy because my IP
are "in use"), so they instead of owning IP forever will have to pay me
forever, moreover, they have to accept the much higher price or they don't
get it, because without transfer policy, US competitor are not able to
compete with me in the market, therefore I make much more money.(stop
competition from outside so people with good relations can make a lot
money, sound a bit familiar in this continent, emm?)

So, If I am the super evil guy with a lot IP address sitting around waiting
to make money from, I would strongly against the policy, because it makes
me make far less money.

But Noah, you right about one thing, transfer market will indeed prolong
the life of IPv4, because it will make IPv4 much more affordable while
without it, people will have to pay higher price in a different market and
hoping Ipv6 will catch very soon(as no one can decided the market), but as
long as IPv6 still not catch up, I would say everybody are better off with
a transfer policy.

> With regards
> >
> > John C.Adams.
> >
>
> Noah
>



-- 
With regards

John C.Adams.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160207/e88d9b86/attachment.html>