<html><body>
<DIV>alternatively the economic incentive could be a dis-incentive. although the "packet tax" never quite caught on perhaps an ip address tax would?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>thanks.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> <BR><BR>> <BR>> Per Heldal wrote: <BR>> > Growth is king, also in networking. How can a v4 market meet the demand <BR>> > of an expanding global network beyond a short-lived gold-rush? A <BR>> > price-tag may create an incentive to sell, but doesn't create more units <BR>> > or magically solve other problems (e.g. fragmentation). Many are those <BR>> > who look forward to a v4 market. Not to invest in in, but because will <BR>> > be the most powerful catalyst driving the transition to v6. <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> I personally agree with all that you say, but it doesn't mean that a <BR>> market isn't useful. In particular, can it be useful in a transition <BR>> from IPv4 to IPv6 to those who are not in a position to easily move from <BR>> one t
o!
!
the
other? They would pay a premium to move based on scarcity <BR>> already, but if there is no motivation to bring unused blocks into the <BR>> market, then they won't show up. And that is sufficient motivation for <BR>> a black market, a market that governments themselves couldn't play a <BR>> constructive role in (buying OR selling). <BR>> <BR>> Eliot <BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>