[139784] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Tue Apr 19 18:13:35 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinQNpCf+E-1LVkCoUxQnfRhUigm8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:13:16 -0500
To: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up.
> This mysterious Nortel/Microsoft transaction would seem to give
> credibility to an assumption of increasing cost.
I think we can agree on this. It is the natural result of exhaustion - =
scarce supply, ongoing demand.
It is important to note, however, that this is orthogonal to the =
registry management structure; we could have increased IPv4 acquisition =
costs with ARIN, or increased IPv4 acquisition costs with somebody else.
> Therefore, it stands
> to reason that the cost of "database services" associated with being a
> holder of IP addresses will be inconsequential.
...
> If anyone thinks that won't be true for IP addresses, by all means,
> let that person propose to overhaul the IN-ADDR system and possibly
> the WHOIS database. I do not think stakeholders will agree with their
> views. IP addresses are finite, and the cost of acquiring them will,
> in all likelihood, dwarf the cost of publishing ownership/custodial
> information or operational DNS records.
As I agreed above, acquisition costs will go up regardless. The real =
question is total cost, which is (basically) the acquisition price plus =
the ongoing registry maintenance costs.
As one possibility, an overhaul might result in less expensive (or even =
"free") registry services being provided by brokers. Assuming market =
prices aren't affected by the overhaul, the total cost might thus be =
lower with a broker versus ARIN. Perhaps this is a small impact, but =
it's real.
More importantly, an overhaul to the registry system that facilitates =
liquidity in the market may introduce additional benefits. (e.g. more =
predictable and/or lower acquisition costs) I'm not an economist and =
I'm open to contrary arguments, but I see potential upsides to an =
overhaul that don't exist with the status quo.
Cheers,
-Benson
