[128682] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sat Aug 14 01:02:04 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin0Yxq6VcuO=FL+TOGGe_AssF8AViCNJSpvBkDU@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:00:24 -0700
To: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is "no demand."
It would probably be useful to be public about which vendors are still =
saying there is no demand for IPv6.
> Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies,
> etc. with /17 and /18 allocations who are either forging justification
> or wildly abusing the use of that space outside of the declared need.
It is and always has been trivial to come up with justifications for =
pretty much anything, regardless of reality. The RIRs do not have the =
staff or resources to go into requesters and audit them to verify they =
aren't lying through their teeth. The RIR system fundamentally relies =
on trust. Always has and always will. Customers of the RIRs must trust =
that the RIRs are "doing the right thing" and the RIRs must trust that =
their customers are not "abusing the system". In a world of plentiful =
resources, this works fine since the costs of abusing the system (on =
either side) generally outweigh the benefits.
To state the obvious, we're (very) soon no longer going to be in a world =
of plentiful resources. I would be very surprised if the outcome in the =
addressing world is any different than any other situation where you =
have a scarce resource and lots of folks with need of that resource.
You seem to be suggesting that ARIN (and presumably the other RIRs) =
invest more in policing the address space and otherwise regulating the =
market. How much are you willing to pay for that service?
Regards,
-drc
