Leo and all, It doesn't matter if the wording only applies to IPv6 either. The same principals apply as Michael correctly stated them. Making IPv6 OR IPv4 address space a liquid asset is a huge error in judgment. Such would only make RIR's and LIR's IP address casinos. Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.
Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances".
Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not make any distinction between the two versions of IP.
Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to IPv4.
The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy took appropriate account of the circumstances.
Regards,
Leo Vegoda
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827