[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Tue Oct 30 09:30:44 CET 2007
Goede Iljitsch, iljitsch at muada.com (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.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]