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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf