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

["Elmar K. Bins" elmi@localhost]

Goede Iljitsch,

iljitsch@localhost (Iljitsch van Beijnum) wrote:

> >Which does not mean these networks are unused
> 
> I think "not present in the routing table" is a good working definiion  
> of "unused".

Your perspective (and mine - I don't like that either!) is only one of
many possible ways to look at the thing.

> 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?

I think we should refrain from discussing morals here; I believe neither
of the people on the list *likes* that there is *legitimately assigned*
address space out there that has never been used.

> >and/or reclaimable.
> I don't think that is knowable until someone actually tries it.

Since the space has been assigned and/or allocated according to the
regulations then effective, there is no legal (is there any at all?)
or justifiable way to force those people to give their space back to
a RIR. If they do so of their own account, fine; if you want to take
the time and make the effort to go there and talk to the Apples,
IBMs and HPs of the world, be my guest; I might even help you, because
I see a good cause there.

I just say - success will be very very limited, if any amount of
address space can be "reclaimed" (talked out of people) at all.


> If a market does happen, it will be interesting to see how much of  
> that "unreclaimable" address space appears on that market.

That is an entirely different thing. Those people will discover that
they have an *asset* they never thought of. And while their ops,
networking and community people will try and prevent this from
happening, management will ask them for a technical solution to be
able to sell this asset, calculate cost/gain ration and *do it*.

> >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.

You don't play nuances, do you? Well; in the "civilised western world",
people are very unlikely to commit murder, but people are not very
inhibited of trading their asset on a market, be it black or white.
So take into account human nature outside of problem regions, and
then you have a better picture.


> >If we can get people to use the white market instead of the black
> >market, good.
> 
> Why?

Because white market means RIR control. Sorry I didn't make clear that
it meant that for me.


> >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?

Yes. Now convince them. If they see a business case, you might even be
successful. Apart from those things happening, getting efficient
filtering in place that are controlled by entities we as the community
trust, will need a common effort.

Sorry to spoil your dreams,
				Elmar.