Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

[Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch@localhost]

On 29 okt 2007, at 16:18, Elmar K. Bins wrote:

> > > > 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
I think "not present in the routing table" is a good working definiion  
of "unused".
Is it reasonable for people to keep almost half a percent of the IPv4  
address space for themselves just so they don't have to renumber into  
the space specifically set aside for this?
> and/or reclaimable.
I don't think that is knowable until someone actually tries it.

If a market does happen, it will be interesting to see how much of  
that "unreclaimable" address space appears on that market.
> > The negative consequences of trading address space outweigh the
> > positive ones.
> Trading address space is going to come, whether we like it or not.
Murder happens too, despite the fact that most of us don't like it. We  
do what we can to stop it, not because we think we can eradicate it,  
but because every incremental reduction is worthwhile.
> If we can get people to use the white market instead of the black
> market, good.
Why?

> 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 ;)
Sometimes all it takes is a filter and some vision. Remember the  
Sprint prefix length filters?