nanog mailing list archives
Re: Market-based address allocation
From: Bill Nickless <nickless () mcs anl gov>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:36:03 -0500
At 03:43 PM 4/30/2003 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
Without mandating necessity, I'd also point out that there would no longer be IPv4 address space available except at outrageous prices for smaller networks that wish to multi-home and have their own netblocks.
At 02:10 PM 4/30/2003 -0700, bmanning () karoshi com wrote:
Oh... sorry, are folks really seriously wanting to treat integers as a marketable commodity?
I'm confused--are IPv4 netblocks so valuable that we can't expect the market to set a reasonable price, or are IPv4 netblocks (sets of integers) so worthless that they're not worth the trouble of trading at all?
=== Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390 PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 nickless () mcs anl gov
Current thread:
- Market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Jack Bates (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Scott Bradner (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Jack Bates (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Bill Nickless (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Jack Bates (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Simon Lyall (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation bmanning (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Jack Bates (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation bmanning (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 30)
- RE: Market-based address allocation David Schwartz (Apr 30)
- Re: Market-based address allocation David G. Andersen (Apr 30)