RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

[<marc.neuckens@localhost]

Do I understand it correctly that a big part of RIPE community has no major objections to the following :

LIR A has different allocations
At a certain moment it  no longer requires part of this address space.
LIR_A can sell this to LIR_B as long as LIR B can justify it's need (at any price agreed between LIR_A and LIR_B)

If this is allowed, don't you think some people are thinking of starting a new company with impressive business plans and lot's of future customers but their only reason of existence is speculation on IPv4 exhaustion ?

Marc Neuckens
Belgacom



> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin@localhost] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
> Sent: 08 October 2008 17:14
> To: michael.dillon@localhost address-policy-wg@localhost
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling
> Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
>
> On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon@localhost" <michael.dillon@localhost wrote:
>
> >>>    It is contrary to the goals of this document
> >>>    and is not in the interests of the Internet
> >>>    community as a whole for address space to be
> >>>    considered freehold property.
> >>
> >> Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents
> >> into account?  "Different circumstances".
> >
> > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not
> > make any distinction between the two versions of IP.
>
> Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This
> document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of
> globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to
> IPv4.
>
> The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost
> completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy
> took appropriate account of the circumstances.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda


**** DISCLAIMER ****
http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer