North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Geoff Huston
  • Date: Fri Oct 14 16:56:46 2005

At 11:56 PM 13/10/2005, Brandon Ross wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [email protected] wrote:

I'm sure that there will be a frantic scramble, but I don't
expect it to last long enough for an IPv4 black market to
There's already a black market in IPv4. I've seen plenty of offers to "buy" address space through various underhanded schemes. Most take the form of creating a shell company that the space is registered to and then the buyer "acquiring" that company.
Why would you call an attempt to conform to existing policy "underhand"? Seems to me that there is policy framework where policy-compliant address trading incurs certain overheads, and, according to this report, the overheads are being met. Having specified "you need to do x to move an address around", then when folk actually do 'x' its not underhand or even surprising - its what they were told was the way to do it. Perhaps the appropriate way to consider this is to consider whether the existing preconditions are rational and reasonable, or whether there is a more "user-friendly" way to interface to such address movement activities that does not involve shelf company acquisition as a side-effect.