[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 08:48:46PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
>Nevertheless, it would certainly be possible to engage in more long-term
>(24 months ++) speculation or "investment" into the IPv4 market.
>However, as the ulterior motive for any speculator/investor LIR is
>financial gain, I highly doubt that they would simply "sit on" their
>inventory for the 24 months required by policy. Rather, I think they
>would try to make them generate a revenue stream in that period - by
>leasing them out, for example. In doing so, they would actually be
>performing the core duty of any LIR and thus end up having "justified
>need" as valid as any other.

Besides, IPv4 is a pretty dodgy investment. At some stage, IPv6 
deployment will have to gain proper traction (if only because the
cost of aquiring IPv4 space has become prohibitive) and ipv4 will
overnight become worthless.
Tbh, one of my motivations for supporting this proposal is that I
would like to see IPv4 finally run out, because otherwise we will
never see IPv6 deployment take off...

rgds,
Sascha Luck