[address-policy-wg] Vanity address allocations and the end of IPv4
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Vanity address allocations and the end of IPv4
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Vanity address allocations and the end of IPv4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Mar 29 16:27:16 CEST 2010
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > On 29 Mar 2010, at 14:48, Shane Kerr wrote: > > >To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less > >address > >space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I > >thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right? > > I'm not sure Shane that an allocation of vanity addresses would fit > with these goals. If it does, then fine. Though I'm doubtful. If there > were "too many" vanity assignments, that may well fragment the unused > space in a way that prevents another LIR getting a contiguous > allocation that's big enough for their genuine technical needs. It > might also encourage a land-grab by people gobbling up vanity space > that they don't actually need in the hope that they could sell it on > later. to be clear, a "vanity" address is in the eye of the beholder. --bill
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Vanity address allocations and the end of IPv4
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Vanity address allocations and the end of IPv4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]