[ppml] address ownership
drc at virtualized.org
Sat Aug 18 17:54:59 EDT 2007
On Aug 18, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> even leaving aside the fact that IP addresses aren't property
>> This is a red herring. Would calling the things that are being
>> bought and sold "Address IRUs" make you (and Steve Ryan) feel better?
> addresses aren't available on an IRU basis.
Yes. Right now, under the terms of RSAs, address allocations are not
(in theory) indefeasible. However, I was suggesting creating a new
object corresponding to an "indefeasible right of use" for addresses
on top of the underlying addresses that _could_ be bought and sold
without veering off into pointless discussions about "address
> don't call this a red herring while RFC 2050 and all ...
RIR assertions that addresses can't be 'owned' (which isn't, by the
way, in RFC 2050 -- you might ask yourself why not) do not apply to a
majority of the IPv4 address space allocated to date unless the RIRs
are asserting they have authority of address space not allocated by
them. As such, discussions of ownership is 'a diversion or
distraction from an original objective' of how to deal with a post-
IPv4 run out world.
If you disagree, why doesn't ARIN revoke (say) 184.108.40.206/8?
More information about the ARIN-PPML