On 13/06/2008 3:55, "Nigel Titley" <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Michael Dillon said:
To get REVERSAL, where companies start returning unused IPv4 addresses, we need a lot of IPv6 deployment.
Tinkering with RIPE policies is NOT a substitute for IPv6 deployment.
I don't think anyone, least of all the authors of 2007-08, thinks that it is a substitute for IPv6 deployment. Most people feel that this is the proper solution in an ideal world. However most of us feel that IPv6 deployment to large consumer DSL networks is just not going to happen before IPv4 runs out and in that case some mechanism for recovery of unused space will be needed. Experiences with trying to get existing holders of unused space to hand it back without financial incentives (and regardless of what RIR policies say on the matter) make me pessimistic that altruism will save the day.
I agree that there is a benefit in allowing a financial incentive to encourage transfers of address space to where it can be used more efficiently. But I think that any hope of providing enough for large consumer DSL networks to continue growing at a steady rate, let alone a similar to rate what we see now, is very optimistic. Maybe I am unduly pessimistic about what is likely to be made available. Regards, Leo Vegoda