[address-policy-wg] Vanity address allocations and the end of IPv4

Jim,

On 2010-03-29 14:26, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2010, at 12:35, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 
>> * I support allowing people to request specific unused resources
> 
> Of course. Unused resources are there to be used.
> 
>> * I hope that can be done without a policy change
> 
> By that I hope you don't mean that the NCC does some fancy footwork
> around the current policies to give an LIR the particular address block
> they want. It is extremely important now that we're in the end-game for
> IPv4 that the current non-discriminatory policies based on technical
> need are followed. If there is a new requirement for allocating the
> remaining resources -- eg vanity addresses -- that simply has to go
> through the policy making process. IMO it would be very unwise to tinker
> with these policies for non-technical reasons as IPv4 runs out.

To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less address
space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I
thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right?

The RIPE NCC does not have any restrictions on which particular
resources it allocates or assigns. In fact, I am pretty sure that any
sensible person would argue that the RIPE NCC should have as much
freedom as possible to do things in the most efficient way. So I think
the RIPE NCC already has the power to issue "vanity addresses" in the
rare case where someone asks for these.

Mostly I find it a pity that the NCC wasn't more accommodating and that
we're having this discussion at all. Maybe the software used for this
process does not have a manual override or something? Oh well, compared
to the horror stories I hear about the bad old days, I guess we have no
complaints....

In the end I suppose we can just let the addresses fall wherever and let
"the market" sort it out, now that there is a "trading" policy. While
the desire for vanity addresses might accelerate the process of IP
addresses becoming property, that is probably inevitable, so it won't
change the big picture too much.

--
Shane