nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: Geoff Huston <gih () apnic net>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:39:39 +1000
At 11:56 PM 13/10/2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:I'm sure that there will be a frantic scramble, but I don't expect it to last long enough for an IPv4 black market to form.There's already a black market in IPv4. I've seen plenty of offers to "buy" address space through various underhanded schemes. Most take the form of creating a shell company that the space is registered to and then the buyer "acquiring" that company.
Why would you call an attempt to conform to existing policy "underhand"? Seems to me that there is policy framework where policy-compliant address trading incurs certain overheads, and, according to this report, the overheads are being met. Having specified "you need to do x to move an address around", then when folk actually do 'x' its not underhand or even surprising - its what they were told was the way to do it. Perhaps the appropriate way to consider this is to consider whether the existing preconditions are rational and reasonable, or whether there is a more "user-friendly" way to interface to such address movement activities that does not involve shelf company acquisition as a side-effect.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Mike Leber (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael Greb (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Steven M. Bellovin (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Brandon Ross (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Bjørn Mork (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Geoff Huston (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Jeroen Massar (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Jared Mauch (Oct 14)