[ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for legacy holders (/wRSA + efficient use))

[David Conrad]

Michael,

On Jul 31, 2007, at 12:54 PM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>> c) there are entities who have more of the resource than they need
>
> If so, then they are not in compliance with global policies on IPv4
> allocation. The only entities that I know of who are in this  
> postion are
> so-called legacy holders such as MIT.

Which I believe is about 100 /8s.

> But I do not believe that entities
> like MIT have a right to monetize their IPv4 addresses when the vast
> majority of industry is playing by the rules and has no surplus.

Because?

> If you can't sustain a market in IPv4 addresses through
> regular churn i.e. address blocks changing hands, then you don't  
> have a
> real market.

I'm not sure why you think a real market can't be time constrained  
(in fact, I believe most are in one way or another).  A while back  
"Beany Babies" were all the rage and people were buying and selling  
those dolls, often at significant markups.  Are you saying there  
wasn't a market for Beany Babies?

> Instead you have a flash in the pan where a few private
> deals get made, and then the IPv4 free pool is utterly exhausted.

I suspect that when people with 'surplus' address space see 'private  
deals' getting made, they'll begin to question whether NAT is all  
that evil after all.  I'm guessing not and as a result, you'll see  
increased address utilization efficiency and an expansion of the  
"available" (if not "free") pool.

> The only thing that will convince me that a market is possible  
> would be
> an official public statement from the U.S. Department of Commerce
> stating that it supports the concept of a market in IPv4 addresses.

I'm not sure I see why DoC would be relevant in this.

> You know the effect that "running code" has, don't you?

Sure. I was at ISC when we developed the "running code" that  
supported A6 records.  Your point?

Rgds,
-drc