[190427] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Mon Jul 4 10:59:33 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <DAC3BF99-FB01-4E1A-8303-E30DF296E856@rivervalleyinternet.net>
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 17:59:28 +0300
To: Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 4 July 2016 at 17:33, Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
> The simple fact that there is/are IP broker exchanges now simply proves there are surplus IPs to go around.
I'm unsure of the message. Is the statement that if commodity is
tradable, there is surplus to go around? Is converse true? If I can't
buy it, there is no surplus?
I don't think either statement is correct. Lot of things exist in
exactly 1 copy, and there is market for them, so market does not imply
'surplus to go around'. And lack of market does not imply 'surplus to
go around', merely lack of demand.
Yes, US has more IP addresses allocated to them than there are people,
several times over. This is not true for earth. We need more
addresses, IPv4 addresses are scarce. Just because I can throw money
at the problem, does not mean problem does not exist. I am privileged,
but people shouldn't need to have my privileges to have access to
Internet.
--
++ytti
