[89142] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Fri Mar 3 11:29:47 2006
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:29:23 -0500
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>
To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <04fd01c63edc$1a1d1a80$720016ac@ssprunk>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 3/3/06 11:04 AM, "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that current RIR allocations/assignments are effectively leases
> (though the RIRs deny that fact) and, like any landlord, they can refuse to
> renew a lease or increase the rent at any point.
>
> There might be some interesting political battles when it comes to legacy
> allocations which are currently rent-free, but those tenants will find
> themselves woefully outnumbered when that day comes.
>
> Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
> CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
> K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
>
Leases are actually a bad thing, from an address exhaustion point of view.
Its like a country where the government owns all the land, but people have
been farming it for generations. They can't sell it.
If an address trading scheme evolves, address block holders will need clear
title granted them by the RIRs. That would make an IP address market,
moderated through the RIRs as clearing houses, tenable.
Sadly, many of the folks who are involved with ARIN are sadly short sighted
in this regard. They dismiss both the idea of an address market upon v4
exhaustion and the idea of clear title to address blocks. While I can't
state unequivocally that this is the answer, it does seem to merit further
study.
--
Daniel Golding
