nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 10:57:39 -0500
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:37:49AM -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
Steven Bakker <steven.bakker () ams-ix net> wrote:... the gain is 4 weeks of extra ip address space in terms of estimated consumption.The burn rate is the best argument I've seen against the idea so far.I'm glad you think so, since it's easy to refute.
[snip]
Now that has ended, and addresses actually cost money in a real market.
[snip more market market market] "Ended" is an interesting word, given distributions continue from the RIRs (eg https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/ipv4/waiting_list/) as resources are available. Should any one of these ...imaginative schemes come to pass and drop shiny new v4 space into the IANA hopper, please do point to the policy where they would be distributed in a manner inconsistent with the RIR system, as your post focused on the secondry transfer market. The transfer market came into being as a tool to unlock stranded rights to use prefixes and a (too mild) friction to nudge IPv6 adoption. Should a pile of v4 be magically made available not from existing stranded rights, the expectation that somehow the market would be involved is odd to say the least. I would expect if this vein of "decades" of v4 were mined, the transfer market should correctly react as any other supply/demand system and prices would drop. Any presumptions about "burn rate influenced by pre-exhaustion land rush" should be sure to compare hard-landing (ARIN) and soft-landing RIRs. Cheers, Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
Current thread:
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast, (continued)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Jared Mauch (Nov 25)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Dave Taht (Nov 25)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast bzs (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Curran (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Gaurav Kansal (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Provo (Nov 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Karsten Thomann via NANOG (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Jim (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Tom Beecher (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Matthew Petach (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 19)