[rpd] Two more petitioners

[Mike Burns]

On 21/12/2017 12:33, Noah wrote:

If we did what you have suggested above, we would end up starving so bad and while starving, the IPv$ brokers would swing in so fast and dictate the price of the readily available yet  much needed IPv4 space. 




There appears to be very little incentive to change attitudes and adopt IPv6. If the IPv$ brokers arrive with high prices, people might just start to notice the alternative.




Cheers

Noah


Hi Noah,

 

As one of the brokers on this list, let me make the simple point that brokers do not parachute in with dollar signs in their eyes and the ability to set prices.

 

Brokers provide the sorely needed service of matching buyers and sellers after decades of wide dissemination of address space. How will an ISP in Jakarta know that an American college received a /16 in 1992 that is available?

 

How does the American college know how to transact business on the other side of the world?

 

Brokers get paid for the services they provide related to IPv4 addresses, like most members of this list.

Prices are set by the market at the intersection of supply and demand curves.

 

I have not taken a position on the soft-landing policy, but I am opposed.

 

I have seen the results of the reserve policies in RIPE, APNIC, and LACNIC and compared them to the absence of those reserves in ARIN. My retrospective decision is that ARIN took the correct course by relying on the market to supply future IPv4 needs, and the lack of dramatic price swings over the last 5 years underlines the stability of that market. We supply initial blocks to new ARIN members almost every day, and among the many costs of deploying new service, the cost of the IPv4 is relatively small and taken into account just like the costs of routers or circuits.

 

ARIN did not suffer the problems associated with the reserve pools, problems like new members being spun up just to grab the free /22.  RIPE was roiled by this issue, and APNIC had to impose a long waiting period on this space, creating two classes of addresses in that region. 

 

The change to the soft landing policy which is in last call here will prevent those with a current need from acquiring the space while extending the duration of the pool too long, in my opinion. 

 

Regards

Mike Burns

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171221/2a9da0a9/attachment.html>