Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
-
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch@localhost
-
From: "Elmar K. Bins" elmi@localhost
-
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:18:36 +0100
-
Cc: Nigel Titley nigel@localhost, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost, Max Tulyev president@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost
-
Mail-followup-to: "Elmar K. Bins" elmi@localhost, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch@localhost, Nigel Titley nigel@localhost, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost, Max Tulyev president@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost
-
Organization: unorganized since 1789
iljitsch@localhost (Iljitsch van Beijnum) wrote:
> >>>The best solution is NO market and reclaiming address space that
> >>>is unused.
>
> >>How much of the currently allocated IPv4 address space do you
> >>believe is unused?
>
> About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing
> table.
Which does not mean these networks are unused and/or reclaimable.
(And does not mean otherwise, too)
> The negative consequences of trading address space outweigh the
> positive ones.
Trading address space is going to come, whether we like it or not.
If we can get people to use the white market instead of the black
market, good. But markets either colour will exist.
Of course, if every DFZ-routing party cooperates with the RIRs and/or
routing registries, black markets can be counteracted. But you tell
me the odds of that happening ;)
Yours,
Elmar.
|