On 22 Jul 2009, at 22:50, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
I think that we all realise that in a real market, prices go up and down with every transaction. So, given that someone is willing to offer 100,000 USD for a /20 today, when there are free alternatives at the RIR, what do you think the going rate will be after the free alternative is gone?
I have no idea. And neither does anyone else. As I said earlier there are too many unknowns and assumptions to make any meaningful predictions here. If all other parameters remained unchanged from today, it would be reasonable to expect the going rate for that /20 will be higher in a post run-out world. But the parameters will almost certainly be different by then. Any market in IPv4 could have a glut of ERX space depressing prices, IPv6 may be more attractive because the world's CPE and routers implement it, NAT is cheaper/better then than it is today, X.25 makes a comeback, the Internet's Next Big Thing is IPv6-only, RIR transfer policies change, ISPs and telcos dispose of zillions of unwanted IPv4 space because they've switched to IPv6, etc, etc. And if/when there is a mass uptake of IPv6, IPv4 space will become as valuable as VHS tape: impossible to even give away. All I'd be prepared to predict is that /20 in a post run-out world could be worth somewhere between zero and a few billion dollars. I'm not even sure what the margin of error on that estimate might be.
If we assume there will be a market in IPv4 after the run-out, we should expect the usual laws of supply and demand will mean there's some sort of price equilibrium in the market.
Equilibrium? When I learned basic economics, scarcity caused prices to rise.
IIUC "equilibrium" has a specific meaning in economics: when buyers and sellers agree on a price. This is independent of the availability of what's being traded. If there's a glut of some commodity and nobody's buying, the price is too high. The same holds if the commodity is scarce and no-one's buying. Buyers are of course usually prepared to pay more for something that's in short supply. That doesn't mean they will pay the seller's asking price regardless. Or that the price of a scarce resource can only increase: how much is a LaserDisc player worth today?
You may not be able to predict exact prices, but you can do pretty good at predicting minimum and maximum prices relative to a hard currency, i.e. ounces of gold or barrels of crude, or Big Macs.
That might hold for some conditions in a mature market. I'm doubtful it applies to something as immature and unstable as today's barely established trading in IPv4 space. If we can even call this "trading". That activity doesn't (yet) have the same roles, characteristics and legal frameworks found in (say) a commodities exchange or futures market.
How cheap do IPv4 addresses need to be to make it worthwhile for an equipment vendor to buy up addresses today to drive up the price and make it worthwhile for the market to buy carrier grade NAT boxes?
I don't accept your starting premise, but let's play along. Apart from the attention of competition authorities, it would be a very, very risky business strategy to try and corner the world's IPv4 space. For one thing that empire could be eliminated overnight by the availability of "free" IPv6 addresses, particularly if the cost of deploying IPv6 was less than buying IPv4 from the monopolist who gobbled up the v4 space. And if the price of this vendor's NAT solutions were artificially high to capitalise on the distorted expense of IPv4, that leaves plenty of room for their competitors to undercut them.
We have a cartel today and the price is zero. It's been like that for many years now and nobody is complaining or investigating the RIRs.
It would be unwise to assume that will always be the case. Especially when the availability of IPv4 gets the attention of regulators and politicians. Or if the RIRs have some sort of involvement in a market in address space: a clearing house for transactions or whatever. Once an open market develops, the concept of IP addresses as property will follow and that will surely attract attention from governments and competition authorities.
I agree on that. Where are all the economics grad students?
Given the current state of the financial sector, I expect most of them will have McJobs in somwhere like a coffee shop or fast food outlet. :-)
P.S. My position is that IPv6 is the answer
I agree wholeheartedly. My personal opinion is to leave the IPv4 policies as they are. Any changes will be like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. And will look bad to the outside world when they finally wake up to the imminent exhaustion of IPv4 space. We should stop worrying about IPv4 or speculating about what a future market in IPv4 might look like. [Though an open question is what the role of the RIRs might be in that market.] IMO, it's best to concentrate on IPv6 deployment and getting on with that migration.