[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses

Removing the needs-based requirement would break open the entire IPv4
market, letting big corporations to buy everything available and then decide
who they are willing to sell it for the highest price.

IP addresses will become a tool to obstruct competitors, wipe-out all
smaller players and locking the market for newcomers. An authority
validating each request with the current policies could somewhat prevent
that from happening.


At 09-10-2012 12:16, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Gert Doering
> 
>> James' proposal has its merits, but OTOH, just loosening up sub-allocations
>> might be the approach more appropriate for "the time we're living through".
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> While we still do not have much experience with sub-allocations, the
>> warning "if you hand it all out, you might not get new space easily,
>> so be wary" is moot - it's now "if you hand it out, there will not be 
>> any more space, period!", and LIRs should have noticed *that* by now...
> 
> The way I see it, this argument applies equally well to LIR->EU
> assignments, and to {LIR,EU}->{LIR,EU} transfers. I don't understand
> what makes sub-allocations special here.
> 
> It would IMHO be much more interesting to see a proposal that would
> retire the needs-based principle completely for all forms of IPv4
> delegations (that aren't taken from the NCC pool). Does it really serve
> any useful purpose nowadays?
> 
> If some LIR wants to give away (assign, transfer, sub-allocate -
> whatever) all their remaining free space to someone who doesn't really
> need it - why not let them? It won't impact me or anyone else since
> their wasteful spending can no longer translate into an increased draw
> from the shared pool. I, on the other hand, would certainly not miss the
> assignment request documentation bureaucracy.
>