Not that I want to be in this argument, but I was intrigued by the
name-dropping from folks who're not silly...
Thanks for the compliment, I guess...
Ned Freed wrote:
> BTW, I suspect you are correct about about the IPv6 transition not being
Pareto
> efficient at the present time, but IMO the bigger issue is that it is widely
> percieved as not even being Kaldor-Hicks efficient, due in large part to
> address space exhaustion being seen as an externality.
So there is a nice Wiki page about both, but the one about the latter
says in part:
"Another problem with Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is that it only considers
private property and private income but does not take into account
change in value of the Commons, Natural Environment, and other
Externalities."
I hadn't read the Wikipedia page on this before today, and IANAE, but this
doesn't seem quite right to me. In particular, my understanding is that whether
or not something is an externality depends on how the system is defined. I
think this page (which was next in line in Google) explains it all better:
http://www.reckon.co.uk/open/Pareto_improvements_and_Kaldor-Hicks_efficiency_criterion
So, in this case, neither measure of efficiency blindingly obviously
applies (the latter being a genaralisation of the former) since the
items in question are very much part of a commons, natural environment
or, whatever it means, an externality.
I don't think so... The "efficency improvement" we're talking about here is
someone switching from IPv4 to IPv6. We're both saying that we believe that
under current conditions this is not "efficient" in either the Pareto
efficiency sense, which basically just looks at whether or not the move
benefits the person making the improvement while not hurting anyone else, or in
the sense of Kaldor-Hicks, which allows for harm to others as long as there's
an overall gain.
A point made on the Wikipedia page (and with which I agree) is that
Kaldor-Hicks is essentially a form of cost-benefit analysis. While you might
argue that the way people perform these analyses uses different criteria than
Kaldor-Hicks implies, I don't think you can make a case that people
contemplating such a change don't look at costs and benefits in some way.
The discussion about which stacks don't/could support these addresses
in what timeframe, is more interesting IMO.
My reason for commenting on this thread was to support PHB's assertion that
getting some people with serious ecomonic chops involved would be a good idea.
My remarks about efficiency were at most a side note - I'm sorry it has turned
the discussion away from what IMO is the more important point.
As for the address issue, I have to agree with PHB here as well: If these
addresses are usable in a reasonable time frame then we shouldn't be quick to
give them up for private use and if they are unusable in a reasonable time
frame it really doesn't matter what we do with them. So I guess the question
about stack support in different timeframe is interesting at least in the sense
that it would tell us whether or not this is even worth the electrons we're
using talking about it.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf