[139736] in North American Network Operators' Group

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: IPv4 address exchange

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Mon Apr 18 19:21:07 2011

From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110418155709.3785099F@resin16.mta.everyone.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:20:04 -0700
To: surfer@mauigateway.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org

On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Has this been discussed here? =20

Not yet for this particular instance.

> I did a quickie search and saw nothing.  Other than spam to a =
technical mailing list, do you guys care, or is it a non-issue?=20

Unfortunately, it's an issue. It's a painfully obvious outcome of the =
laws of supply and demand and the inability of the RIRs to effectively =
evolve to meet the changing environment. As with any disruptive event =
(which the exhaustion of the IPv4 free pool clearly is), there will be a =
bit of chaos as things settle down into new patterns.=20

On the positive side, I figure it means it will be more likely that =
allocated-but-unused IPv4 address space will be put back into play =
(since there is now a financial incentive to do so). An explicit cost =
for obtaining IPv4 should also help justify IPv6 deployment (since the =
(fixed) cost of IPv6 deployment will be able to be compared against the =
unpredictable but likely increasing cost of obtaining IPv4 addresses).  =
Operationally, there are concerns, specifically how ISPs determine =
whether the addresses presented to them are owned by the presenter (if =
they care), but I understand that's already a problem (as demonstrated =
by Ron's postings).

Interesting times.

Regards,
-drc



home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post