2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 20 November 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
On 23 Oct 2007, at 10:20, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region.
I support this process and feel that it would significantly help keep records up to date when LIRs consolidate, and in other circumstances, which is a good aim - good work Nigel and Remco. However, I think that the NCC hostmasters should be given an input - they should be allowed to delay the transfer to a new LIR if they have concerns about assignment policies of the old LIR have not been accurately followed, or the new LIR has not paid their service fee account up to date. I don't have a suggested wording revision at this stage. Best wishes, Andy Davidson
In effect, this proposal enables a market for buying and selling IP address blocks. RIPE is a member of the NRO. According to the NRO factsheet: http://www.nro.net/docs/nro-factsheet/nro_technical-sheet.pdf IP addresses are not owned as property. ... When a consumer no longer requires the use of the IP address space, it is returned to the LIR or ISP. It would be very hypocritical if RIPE allowed LIRs to treat address blocks as property between themselves while at the same time forbidding their customers to treat address blocks as property. I wonder if this would be considered a cartel under the EU treaties since the discussions within RIPE are practically invisible to the companies who are customers of LIRs. Do we really want RIPE to move towards pirate capitalism while North America explicitly outlaws such transfers? http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight --Michael Dillon P.S. What is a cartel? It is an illegal secret agreement concluded between competitors who in coordination fix or increase their prices, restrict supply by limiting their sales or their production capacities, and/or divide up their markets or consumers. (quoted from http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/cartels/overview/index_en.cfm )
Hi, On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:16:11AM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
In effect, this proposal enables a market for buying and selling IP address blocks.
It is envisioned that this market is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and there is not much we can do against it. But in the case that this *is* going to happen, we would very much prefer to have accurate records on who is holding the address space - and this proposal is trying to build the basis for this. (We already have the means for resource transfers between LIRs, it's part of the "merger and closures" document, but it's not very well-defined in the case of two independent LIRs doing this without any "merger or closure"). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 23-okt-2007, at 12:26, Gert Doering wrote:
It is envisioned that this market is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and there is not much we can do against it.
But in the case that this *is* going to happen, we would very much prefer to have accurate records on who is holding the address space - and this proposal is trying to build the basis for this.
Once it becomes possible to sell address space we can kiss any chance of any of the legacy space coming back goodbye. Even the slightest step in this direction can be very harmful. I don't see the need to make things easier for people who do things that they aren't supposed to do. If I "lend" some of my address space to someone else, why should I be spared the inconvencience of being contacted when an issue comes up with the use of that space? Presumably, I remember who I lended the address space to, and if not, it's hard to hide in the routing table.
What will be later, when there will be no free IPv4 address space? First, the "black market", where companies sell address space each other, but not make changes in RIPE BD. Second (later?), address space as the valuable resource will be sold together with companies it owns, like sometimes it happens with radio frequency licenses. This will mostly happens with PI space. It is really worst than clear market, isn't it? Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-okt-2007, at 12:26, Gert Doering wrote:
It is envisioned that this market is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and there is not much we can do against it.
But in the case that this *is* going to happen, we would very much prefer to have accurate records on who is holding the address space - and this proposal is trying to build the basis for this.
Once it becomes possible to sell address space we can kiss any chance of any of the legacy space coming back goodbye. Even the slightest step in this direction can be very harmful.
I don't see the need to make things easier for people who do things that they aren't supposed to do. If I "lend" some of my address space to someone else, why should I be spared the inconvencience of being contacted when an issue comes up with the use of that space? Presumably, I remember who I lended the address space to, and if not, it's hard to hide in the routing table.
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On 28 okt 2007, at 23:14, Max Tulyev wrote:
What will be later, when there will be no free IPv4 address space?
If you have IPv4 address space, you'll be able to continue using it as before. If you are in need of new address space, your choice is to go hunt for IPv4 space, which will get harder and harder, or upgrade to IPv6, which will become easier and easier.
First, the "black market", where companies sell address space each other, but not make changes in RIPE BD. Second (later?), address space as the valuable resource will be sold together with companies it owns, like sometimes it happens with radio frequency licenses. This will mostly happens with PI space.
It is really worst than clear market, isn't it?
The best solution is NO market and reclaiming address space that is unused. The two main issues that I have with an address market are: 1. unused address space becomes valuable so it won't be returned for free 2. it's unfair that people who got a lot of address space for free (almost always in rich countries) get to make money from it
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If you are in need of new address space, your choice is to go hunt for IPv4 space, which will get harder and harder, or upgrade to IPv6, which will become easier and easier.
IPv6 Internet is working even now, but completely useless. Because of there is no resources at all. In my opinion, the concrete goal is make 51% of _resources_ (not users) to be reachable through IPv6 before we run out of IPv4. If it succeeds, other 49% will go with "the majority", if not - IPv6 migration completely fails and something other (NAT, secondary market of IPv4, higher level proxies over non-IP protocols, ...) will be implemented instead.
First, the "black market", where companies sell address space each other, but not make changes in RIPE BD. Second (later?), address space as the valuable resource will be sold together with companies it owns, like sometimes it happens with radio frequency licenses. This will mostly happens with PI space.
It is really worst than clear market, isn't it?
The best solution is NO market and reclaiming address space that is unused.
The two main issues that I have with an address market are:
1. unused address space becomes valuable so it won't be returned for free
2. it's unfair that people who got a lot of address space for free (almost always in rich countries) get to make money from it
Do you really believe it can be in the wild? :) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On 29 okt 2007, at 15:10, Max Tulyev wrote:
If you are in need of new address space, your choice is to go hunt for IPv4 space, which will get harder and harder, or upgrade to IPv6, which will become easier and easier.
IPv6 Internet is working even now, but completely useless. Because of there is no resources at all.
I don't need an IPv4 address to talk to my mail server in order to send this message. (Although the mail server still needs an IPv4 address; RIPE's mailservers are IPv4-only ...) So even though you can't do a search and replace and get rid of IPv4 everywhere today, I'm pretty sure EVERYONE can add more IPv6 than they have now.
In my opinion, the concrete goal is make 51% of _resources_ (not users) to be reachable through IPv6 before we run out of IPv4. If it succeeds, other 49% will go with "the majority", if not - IPv6 migration completely fails and something other (NAT, secondary market of IPv4, higher level proxies over non-IP protocols, ...) will be implemented instead.
I don't think it's a good use of our time to consider the possible failure of IPv6. Adoption will be slow, but the future goes on for a long time, it doesn't have to be fast, we can still get where we need to be eventually as long as we keep going in the right direction. Iljitsch
IPv6 Internet is working even now, but completely useless. Because of there is no resources at all.
In my opinion, the concrete goal is make 51% of _resources_ (not users) to be reachable through IPv6 before we run out of IPv4. If it succeeds, other 49% will go with "the majority", if not - IPv6 migration completely fails and something other (NAT, secondary market of IPv4, higher level proxies over non-IP protocols, ...) will be implemented instead.
my 2c worth: v4 and v6 will co-exist for a while, whether we like it or not, and therefore v4 and v6 stuff will need a way to get to each other depending on the service at hand. So quite frankly, I don't see the real advantage of moving 'content' over to v6 any more than moving 'users'. I believe every operator/network/service/whatever has to make the effort to deploy and connect to the v6 world in their interest. NAT has been here for a while, and I don't view it as v6 failure. Regards Mark
On 29 Oct 2007, at 14:47, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: [...]
The best solution is NO market and reclaiming address space that is unused.
How much of the currently allocated IPv4 address space do you believe is unused? How much do you think a reclaim programme would cost to run? Regards, Leo
Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 29 Oct 2007, at 14:47, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[...]
The best solution is NO market and reclaiming address space that is unused.
How much of the currently allocated IPv4 address space do you believe is unused? How much do you think a reclaim programme would cost to run? And we've tried appealing to people's better natures to return unused space. The result confirmed what most of us thought already: people mostly don't have better natures. So the next phase is to encourage them to return addresses into the pool (and remember, it doesn't matter whether they return via the RIRs or not, as long as they become usable) by allowing them to sell, buy or barter. IPv4 space has a limited life anyway. Once we hit 51% of traffic being IPv6 there will be a rapid flip-flop and IPv4 will be dead. A market in V4 addresses will at least allow network designers to put a real cost on not switching to IPv6 and may actually result in business cases being built. This will speed the adoption of IPv6. This is one of the aims of our proposal
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used. Nigel
On 29 okt 2007, at 15:47, Nigel Titley wrote:
The best solution is NO market and reclaiming address space that is unused.
How much of the currently allocated IPv4 address space do you believe is unused?
About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing table.
How much do you think a reclaim programme would cost to run?
Don't know; don't care too much. Let the people who want the addresses pay for it.
And we've tried appealing to people's better natures to return unused space. The result confirmed what most of us thought already: people mostly don't have better natures.
So appeal to something we know they do have. :-)
So the next phase is to encourage them to return addresses into the pool (and remember, it doesn't matter whether they return via the RIRs or not, as long as they become usable) by allowing them to sell, buy or barter.
Just you writing this gives them a reason to not return the space. The negative consequences of trading address space outweigh the positive ones. We're going to run out, the only question is if it's going to be a year or two sooner or later, and wheter it's going to be "we're all out" or "you want buy some IPs, I give you real good price, /8 for only $10/IP". Trading something that's in demand but has no supply will lead to hoarding, reducing availability or at the very least making it unpredictable.
IPv4 space has a limited life anyway. Once we hit 51% of traffic being IPv6 there will be a rapid flip-flop and IPv4 will be dead. A market in V4 addresses will at least allow network designers to put a real cost on not switching to IPv6 and may actually result in business cases being built. This will speed the adoption of IPv6. This is one of the aims of our proposal
I'm against address trading, but there are bad ways to do it and much worse. I suggest that we first come to a world-wide consensus on whether we want to do it. If so, then we can talk about the mechanism.
iljitsch@muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) wrote:
The best solution is NO market and reclaiming address space that is unused.
How much of the currently allocated IPv4 address space do you believe is unused?
About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing table.
Which does not mean these networks are unused and/or reclaimable. (And does not mean otherwise, too)
The negative consequences of trading address space outweigh the positive ones.
Trading address space is going to come, whether we like it or not. If we can get people to use the white market instead of the black market, good. But markets either colour will exist. Of course, if every DFZ-routing party cooperates with the RIRs and/or routing registries, black markets can be counteracted. But you tell me the odds of that happening ;) Yours, Elmar.
On 29 okt 2007, at 16:18, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
How much of the currently allocated IPv4 address space do you believe is unused?
About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing table.
Which does not mean these networks are unused
I think "not present in the routing table" is a good working definiion of "unused". Is it reasonable for people to keep almost half a percent of the IPv4 address space for themselves just so they don't have to renumber into the space specifically set aside for this?
and/or reclaimable.
I don't think that is knowable until someone actually tries it. If a market does happen, it will be interesting to see how much of that "unreclaimable" address space appears on that market.
The negative consequences of trading address space outweigh the positive ones.
Trading address space is going to come, whether we like it or not.
Murder happens too, despite the fact that most of us don't like it. We do what we can to stop it, not because we think we can eradicate it, but because every incremental reduction is worthwhile.
If we can get people to use the white market instead of the black market, good.
Why?
Of course, if every DFZ-routing party cooperates with the RIRs and/or routing registries, black markets can be counteracted. But you tell me the odds of that happening ;)
Sometimes all it takes is a filter and some vision. Remember the Sprint prefix length filters?
Goede Iljitsch, iljitsch@muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) wrote:
Which does not mean these networks are unused
I think "not present in the routing table" is a good working definiion of "unused".
Your perspective (and mine - I don't like that either!) is only one of many possible ways to look at the thing.
Is it reasonable for people to keep almost half a percent of the IPv4 address space for themselves just so they don't have to renumber into the space specifically set aside for this?
I think we should refrain from discussing morals here; I believe neither of the people on the list *likes* that there is *legitimately assigned* address space out there that has never been used.
and/or reclaimable. I don't think that is knowable until someone actually tries it.
Since the space has been assigned and/or allocated according to the regulations then effective, there is no legal (is there any at all?) or justifiable way to force those people to give their space back to a RIR. If they do so of their own account, fine; if you want to take the time and make the effort to go there and talk to the Apples, IBMs and HPs of the world, be my guest; I might even help you, because I see a good cause there. I just say - success will be very very limited, if any amount of address space can be "reclaimed" (talked out of people) at all.
If a market does happen, it will be interesting to see how much of that "unreclaimable" address space appears on that market.
That is an entirely different thing. Those people will discover that they have an *asset* they never thought of. And while their ops, networking and community people will try and prevent this from happening, management will ask them for a technical solution to be able to sell this asset, calculate cost/gain ration and *do it*.
Trading address space is going to come, whether we like it or not.
Murder happens too, despite the fact that most of us don't like it. We do what we can to stop it, not because we think we can eradicate it, but because every incremental reduction is worthwhile.
You don't play nuances, do you? Well; in the "civilised western world", people are very unlikely to commit murder, but people are not very inhibited of trading their asset on a market, be it black or white. So take into account human nature outside of problem regions, and then you have a better picture.
If we can get people to use the white market instead of the black market, good.
Why?
Because white market means RIR control. Sorry I didn't make clear that it meant that for me.
Of course, if every DFZ-routing party cooperates with the RIRs and/or routing registries, black markets can be counteracted. But you tell me the odds of that happening ;)
Sometimes all it takes is a filter and some vision. Remember the Sprint prefix length filters?
Yes. Now convince them. If they see a business case, you might even be successful. Apart from those things happening, getting efficient filtering in place that are controlled by entities we as the community trust, will need a common effort. Sorry to spoil your dreams, Elmar.
elmi@4ever.de (Elmar K. Bins) wrote:
I think we should refrain from discussing morals here; I believe neither of the people on the list *likes* that there is *legitimately assigned* address space out there that has never been used.
That should read "used in the open". Sorry. Elmar.
I think "not present in the routing table" is a good working definiion of "unused".
Not according to RFC 2050.
If a market does happen, it will be interesting to see how much of that "unreclaimable" address space appears on that market.
Note that most of that address space which does not appear in the global routing table is actually in use on internetworks that, as a matter of policy, do not exchange packets with the public Internet. Since these are internetworks, use of RFC 1918 addressing is not possible, and since the end users of these internetworks are also connected to the public Internet, any reuse of these addresses on the public Internet could disrupt the operation of the hidden internetworks. No matter what direction these IPv4 discussions take, it just reinforces the necessity of getting IPv6 up and running as soon as possible. --Michael Dillon
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I think "not present in the routing table" is a good working definiion of "unused".
I disagree. I know fairly amount of legacy prefices which doesn't show up in the global routing table but are still in use in private inter networks. --> Jarno Lähteenmäki
How much of the currently allocated IPv4 address space do you believe is unused? About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing table.
Which, of course, means precisely nothing.
How much do you think a reclaim programme would cost to run? Don't know; don't care too much. Let the people who want the addresses pay for it.
I thought you didn't want a market?
Trading something that's in demand but has no supply will lead to hoarding, reducing availability or at the very least making it unpredictable.
The address space in question is already allocated, hence unavailable. The question is how to incent folks to put their "allocated but unused" address space back into play. Stamping your foot and declaring "markets are bad" isn't likely to be too helpful. Regards, -drc
The address space in question is already allocated, hence unavailable. The question is how to incent folks to put their "allocated but unused" address space back into play. Stamping your foot and declaring "markets are bad" isn't likely to be too helpful.
And thinking that you can influence address-holders decision making without pricing an IPv4 at several hundred thousand dollars, is also not likely to be too helpful. Any organization who contemplates selling a block of IPv4 addresses has to conside the reality that it would be an extremely constrained market where the supply is going down and they are not making any new IPv4 addresses. This means that if you do sell, and then discover that you needed those addresses after all, the price to buy them back could be substantially higher than your sale price. In the face of continually rising prices, it is risky to sell any addresses at all, unless you are absolutely certain, at the CEO/board level, that the addresses are not needed, or if the price that you would receive is at least several hundred thousand dollars. This is a recipe for a gold-rush style market followed by liquidity collapse which will have additional knock-on effects in the real markets, i.e. share prices. --Michael Dillon
Michael, On 10/29/07 8:38 AM, "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
The address space in question is already allocated, hence unavailable. The question is how to incent folks to put their "allocated but unused" address space back into play. Stamping your foot and declaring "markets are bad" isn't likely to be too helpful.
And thinking that you can influence address-holders decision making without pricing an IPv4 at several hundred thousand dollars, is also not likely to be too helpful.
The price point at which people are influenced is a bit beyond my psychic abilities to divine. I believe the appropriate phrase here is "what the market will bear".
Any organization who contemplates selling a block of IPv4 addresses has to conside the reality ...
And the appropriate phrase here would be "buyer (and seller) beware". The fact that a black (or grey) market exists would seem to imply there are people who have made the evaluation that it is in their best interests to sell off address space they do not need. Regards, -drc
On 29 okt 2007, at 16:19, David Conrad wrote:
About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing table.
Which, of course, means precisely nothing.
The value of an IP address is the ability to receive packets from elsewhere addressed to it. Without a presence in a routing table someplace, that doesn't happen so the IP address is of no value. Better give it back so someone else who can instill it with exactly that value in that case...
How much do you think a reclaim programme would cost to run?
Don't know; don't care too much. Let the people who want the addresses pay for it.
I thought you didn't want a market?
There is no market in passports. Doesn't mean you get it for free.
Trading something that's in demand but has no supply will lead to hoarding, reducing availability or at the very least making it unpredictable.
The address space in question is already allocated, hence unavailable. The question is how to incent folks to put their "allocated but unused" address space back into play.
Your assumption is that the value of having more addresses automatically outweighs any negative consequences from having a market. It requires herculian effort to keep the up-and-coming economies happy with the way the internet is currently "run" (if there is such a thing). What is the developing world going to say when they have to pay rich American companies for address space--address space that those companies got for free? What if a slow trickle of expensive IPv4 addresses is just enough to keep people from moving to IPv6, but at the same time stiffling the industry both technically by deeper and deeper layers of NAT and economically because it takes longer and longer and costs more and more to get new IP addresses for new businesses? There are STILL people that refuse to bother implementing IPv6 in their products, making it that much harder for their customers to adopt IPv6 in the next three years that we can reasonably sure about having current levels of IPv4 availability. Anything that these people can use as an excuse to wait even longer is extremely harmful.
Iljitsch, On 10/29/07 2:15 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing table. Which, of course, means precisely nothing. The value of an IP address is the ability to receive packets from elsewhere addressed to it. Without a presence in a routing table someplace, that doesn't happen so the IP address is of no value.
The fact that _you_ can't see a routing announcement for a particular prefix does NOT mean the prefix isn't announced somewhere. There are these things called "private networks" and they do interconnect outside of the context of the "public" Internet.
Trading something that's in demand but has no supply will lead to hoarding, reducing availability or at the very least making it unpredictable.
The address space in question is already allocated, hence unavailable. The question is how to incent folks to put their "allocated but unused" address space back into play.
Your assumption is that the value of having more addresses automatically outweighs any negative consequences from having a market.
Well, no. I'm not actually making that assumption. I make the assumption that markets are going to exist regardless of whether folks stamp their feet and pout about their existence. The fact that long prefixes will undoubtedly be made available could have potential negative implications, no question. However, it would seem best to try to address (pun intended) that issue directly instead of pointlessly trying to address it indirectly by commanding the tide to not come in.
It requires herculian effort to keep the up-and-coming economies happy with the way the internet is currently "run" (if there is such a thing).
Actually, it doesn't. Your view is somewhat condescending. Folks in developing countries are as involved in the way the Internet is currently "run" (in terms of setting address policy) and are as aware of the issues as are folks in developed countries.
What is the developing world going to say when they have to pay rich American companies for address space--address space that those companies got for free?
They will be unhappy. Perhaps a bit less unhappy than being told "it is impossible to obtain any additional address space, period", but perhaps not. The reality is that the IPv4 address space is running out and as long as there is continued demand for IPv4 address space, there are going to be people who are able to obtain address space and some who will not, regardless of the mechanisms of redistribution.
What if a slow trickle of expensive IPv4 addresses is just enough to keep people from moving to IPv6, but at the same time stiffling the industry both technically by deeper and deeper layers of NAT and economically because it takes longer and longer and costs more and more to get new IP addresses for new businesses?
I would imagine the increased cost of IPv4 would likely be a major driver towards IPv6 -- it actually gives people a reason to migrate to IPv6 (as opposed to the current situation).
There are STILL people that refuse to bother implementing IPv6 in their products,
And WHY are they not implementing IPv6? Because there is no customer demand. Why is there no customer demand? Because IPv6 provides no technical incentive over IPv4. Since there are no technical incentives, it would seem the next best option is financial incentives. What is your alternative?
making it that much harder for their customers to adopt IPv6 in the next three years that we can reasonably sure about having current levels of IPv4 availability. Anything that these people can use as an excuse to wait even longer is extremely harmful.
The cost of obtaining IPv4 will go up, regardless of the mechanism used to obtain address space. The cost of obtaining IPv6 will remain low. This will naturally encourage folks to investigate whether IPv6 can meet their connectivity needs. Regards, -drc
On 31/10/2007, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
The fact that _you_ can't see a routing announcement for a particular prefix does NOT mean the prefix isn't announced somewhere. There are these things called "private networks" and they do interconnect outside of the context of the "public" Internet.
I'm sorry, I might be missing some enormous point here, but since when were these companies sold IP addresses or given indefinite title to them? If they received them legitimately and they are in active use then they have a responsiblity to keep the contact information up to date, as per their original agreement (presumably... barring some huge historical cock-up). I say, for every prefix not in the routing table, that is not registered under a paid-up LIR or equivalent, send them repeated automated communications and if they fail to respond, *they* have neglected *their* responsibilities and have lost their right to a loan of a finite pubic resource. If they do not keep up with their responsibilities to keep their records up to date, then why should they be treated any different from the gazillion former class Bs that no longer exist? And why should we be concerned about keeping their networks running when they have no concern about the operation of our internet? If we can't distinguish betwen the legitimate class B holders and the Erie Forge and Steels, then why should it be our burden to do so? Why must we pander to the 5% of those guys who even still exist when they refuse to cooperate? David
David Croft wrote:
On 31/10/2007, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
The fact that _you_ can't see a routing announcement for a particular prefix does NOT mean the prefix isn't announced somewhere. There are these things called "private networks" and they do interconnect outside of the context of the "public" Internet.
I'm sorry, I might be missing some enormous point here, but since when were these companies sold IP addresses or given indefinite title to them?
IP addresses can't be sold (at least under the RIR system), that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Legacy addresses though where simply 'allocated'. Nothing else.
If they received them legitimately and they are in active use then they have a responsiblity to keep the contact information up to date, as per their original agreement (presumably... barring some huge historical cock-up).
They effectively don't have any agreement, they just got them.
I say, for every prefix not in the routing table, that is not registered under a paid-up LIR or equivalent, send them repeated automated communications and if they fail to respond, *they* have neglected *their* responsibilities and have lost their right to a loan of a finite pubic resource.
There is no concept of LIR for those assignments. RIRs and thus also LIRs didn't even exist at that time. Remember that RIPE NCC was the first RIR founded around 1991. Most legacy blocks far predate that. See the following URL and you will easy see that predate it: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
If they do not keep up with their responsibilities to keep their records up to date, then why should they be treated any different from the gazillion former class Bs that no longer exist? And why should we be concerned about keeping their networks running when they have no concern about the operation of our internet?
Because those resources (IP addresses in this case) are not only for "The Internet" but more for "Internet Protocol using Networks".
If we can't distinguish betwen the legitimate class B holders and the Erie Forge and Steels, then why should it be our burden to do so? Why must we pander to the 5% of those guys who even still exist when they refuse to cooperate?
Do any of those networks really refuse to cooperate? I am fairly sure that during the ERX work most of them got contacted and also correctly responded to inquiries. If they didn't, let the people who did them please speak up in public for which /8's etc nobody responded and then see if those contacts can be found to figure out what/if they are being used or not. Greets, Jeroen
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 01:45 +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote:
David Croft wrote: Legacy addresses though where simply 'allocated'. Nothing else.
If they received them legitimately and they are in active use then they have a responsiblity to keep the contact information up to date, as per their original agreement (presumably... barring some huge historical cock-up).
They effectively don't have any agreement, they just got them.
I say, for every prefix not in the routing table, that is not registered under a paid-up LIR or equivalent, send them repeated automated communications and if they fail to respond, *they* have neglected *their* responsibilities and have lost their right to a loan of a finite pubic resource.
There is no concept of LIR for those assignments. RIRs and thus also LIRs didn't even exist at that time.
Some consider the internet a "virtual society". From that angle it can also be considered fair that the society's laws and regulations to evolve over time. From this perspective legacy-holders have had the opportunity to take part in the process and shouldn't be allowed to ignore it with no consequences. Today it seems much like everyone makes their own rules, or that there are no rules. Either way that is anarchy. What we really need to ask ourselves in the long term is if that is really what we want (considering the perpetual exceptions for legacy-holders that have been suggested in v6 space). //per
Per Heldal wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 01:45 +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Some consider the internet a "virtual society". From that angle it can also be considered fair that the society's laws and regulations to evolve over time. From this perspective legacy-holders have had the opportunity to take part in the process and shouldn't be allowed to ignore it with no consequences. Today it seems much like everyone makes their own rules, or that there are no rules. Either way that is anarchy. What we really need to ask ourselves in the long term is if that is really what we want (considering the perpetual exceptions for legacy-holders that have been suggested in v6 space).
Those 'perpetual exceptions' should of course never happen. Note that the only people/companies/organizations who where arguing for that where the holders of the so-called class B space who simply don't want to contribute back to the RIR process and indeed don't want to be part of the community, they just want everything for free and they think they are special. Fortunately these where only a few loud voices and the RIR community has decided against them. In the ARIN region one can get /48 PI IPv6 which solves their problem. Looking at the IPv6 allocations list quite a number of the 'legacy space holders' have already gone through the LIR process with the RIR in their area and have received an allocation through that way. As such, I think/hope that the rest of them will nicely follow suit and this will not become an issue. Forcing those existing legacy holders to come into the RIR process though is a definitive no-no IMHO. Greets, Jeroen
Note that the only people/companies/organizations who where arguing for that where the holders of the so-called class B space who simply don't want to contribute back to the RIR process and indeed don't want to be part of the community, they just want everything for free and they think they are special.
thank you for the kind characterization. this is an amazingly constructive contribution. randy
On 31 okt 2007, at 2:08, David Conrad wrote:
About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the routing table. Which, of course, means precisely nothing.
The value of an IP address is the ability to receive packets from elsewhere addressed to it. Without a presence in a routing table someplace, that doesn't happen so the IP address is of no value.
The fact that _you_ can't see a routing announcement for a particular prefix does NOT mean the prefix isn't announced somewhere.
True. But then do you concede to the basic logic so the only question is which routing table we look at?
There are these things called "private networks" and they do interconnect outside of the context of the "public" Internet.
Sure, but is it reasonable for (for instance) the US government to have several percent of the total IPv4 address space and use it for this when we have space set aside for exactly these purposes? Japan is the second country in the world as far as IPv4 address use goes with 140 million addresses (but not for long, China is going insanely fast) which is a bit lower than what the US government holds. Not the US - that would be 1.4 billion addresses out of the 2.55 billion in use - but just the US GOVERNMENT: around 10 /8s.
I make the assumption that markets are going to exist regardless of whether folks stamp their feet and pout about their existence.
If we can't do anything about it, why are we having these discussions?
The fact that long prefixes will undoubtedly be made available could have potential negative implications, no question.
I'm not that worried. That's only going to be an issue when an ISP that now gets their space in /12 blocks needs to take 256 /20s. I don't think those ISPs will be prepared to pay market price for that much space, NATing customers will be cheaper for them.
However, it would seem best to try to address (pun intended) that issue directly instead of pointlessly trying to address it indirectly by commanding the tide to not come in.
Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's going to be one, let it be a surprise.
It requires herculian effort to keep the up-and-coming economies happy with the way the internet is currently "run" (if there is such a thing).
Actually, it doesn't. Your view is somewhat condescending. Folks in developing countries are as involved in the way the Internet is currently "run" (in terms of setting address policy) and are as aware of the issues as are folks in developed countries.
Read up on the positions of the Chinese and Brazilians (or rather, their governments) on "internet governance". When was that whole circus again? Last year, the one before?
What is the developing world going to say when they have to pay rich American companies for address space--address space that those companies got for free?
They will be unhappy. Perhaps a bit less unhappy than being told "it is impossible to obtain any additional address space, period", but perhaps not.
I think it's better for poor countries if we're all out, that way it's everyone's problem, not just one for those who can't afford the remaining scraps. Misery loves company.
The reality is that the IPv4 address space is running out and as long as there is continued demand for IPv4 address space, there are going to be people who are able to obtain address space and some who will not, regardless of the mechanisms of redistribution.
What needs to happen is that for someone doing network planning, it's a better choice to go with IPv6 rather than to fledge the IPv4 horse some more. Any and all time we spend making life post-runout easier is a waste of time and harmful because it only delays the real solution. People are going to do what they're going to do; it's not our jobs to make it easier for them to make shortsighted decisions.
There are STILL people that refuse to bother implementing IPv6 in their products,
And WHY are they not implementing IPv6? Because there is no customer demand.
No, it's because they can get away with it. People like Cisco are still selling routers with no 32-bit AS support even though this is a minor update that they've had around for years and we KNOW we'll need this 14 months from now.
Why is there no customer demand? Because IPv6 provides no technical incentive over IPv4. Since there are no technical incentives, it would seem the next best option is financial incentives. What is your alternative?
If there are no incentives there is no reason to do anything. Hence the current situation. No more IPv4 addresses will be an incentive soon enough. What needs to happen is that vendors prepare for that and don't _wait_ until customers have trouble.Î
Gents, On 11/5/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
On 31 okt 2007, at 2:08, David Conrad wrote: <snip>
Actually, it doesn't. Your view is somewhat condescending. Folks in developing countries are as involved in the way the Internet is currently "run" (in terms of setting address policy) and are as aware of the issues as are folks in developed countries.
Read up on the positions of the Chinese and Brazilians (or rather, their governments) on "internet governance". When was that whole circus again? Last year, the one before?
Still an ongoing debate: http://info.intgovforum.org/wsl3.php?listy=CIR especially: http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37 -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
Let me just comment on one thing here... Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's going to be one, let it be a surprise.
You are talking about giving an industry that is valued in the trillions of dollars a "surprise"? I'm sorry but thats just not an option here - we simply need to make this process of extending the useable life of IPv4 work as best we can beyond the exhaustion point of the unallocated address pool. We need to do it in the open, we need to do it with the assistance and cooperation of many others, we need to do it so that the network can continue to operate as best as it can, and we need to do our bit to get the industry get itself out of this rather professionally constructed hole! Geoff
On 5 nov 2007, at 18:27, Geoff Huston wrote:
Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's going to be one, let it be a surprise.
You are talking about giving an industry that is valued in the trillions of dollars a "surprise"?
To avoid a harmful self-fulfilling prophecy: absolutely. Everyone knows IPv4 addresses are running out. Trying to outsmart ourselves coming up with clever things to do after that happens is at best a waste of time. I'm not impressed with your trillions, by the way. (Not even sure how many zeroes that has in English.) The telcos see so much money flow through their hands because they hold the cables/frequencies needed by people to communicate, and because they know how to bill people. Being able to route packets or timeslots is only an afterthought in those processes and the telcos aren't exactly good at doing that. (Typing this on my unconnected laptop three weeks after signing up for DSL service and not even gotten a contract or a vague promise of a delivery date.)
I'm sorry but thats just not an option here - we simply need to make this process of extending the useable life of IPv4 work as best we can beyond the exhaustion point of the unallocated address pool.
What we should be doing is minimizing the pain - not making it last as long as possible. Every day, every hour, every minute that someone has to spend doing work to get address space or wait for address space hurts our industry. We still have a billion plus addresses to burn though, and we should do exactly that using the current policies. Those aren't great, but they are the devil we know. Any action we take regarding the situation after that isn't going to magically create a few hundred million new IPv4 addresses every year, so it's going to be suboptimal in some way or another, no matter what we do. Personally, I'm never going to sign off on a situation where on the one hand, we say that it's too hard to reclaim legacy space, but on the other hand, it's ok that the holders of that space get to make money from it. But I expect this issue to be largely moot because the large ISPs ( ~= telcos) that are responsible for 90% of the yearly IPv4 address consumption are too cheap to buy IP addresses for a price that makes it worth HP et al their time to renumber anyway.
We need to do it in the open, we need to do it with the assistance and cooperation of many others, we need to do it so that the network can continue to operate as best as it can, and we need to do our bit to get the industry get itself out of this rather professionally constructed hole!
If only at some point in the 1990s a group of engineers had been tasked with coming up with a technology to keep IP going after the 32- bit IPv4 address space has been depleted...
Geoff Huston wrote:
Let me just comment on one thing here...
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's going to be one, let it be a surprise.
You are talking about giving an industry that is valued in the trillions of dollars a "surprise"?
Yes, it WILL be a BIG surprise for a majority of LIRs when "No more IPs left!" will be replied from RIPE NCC to their request! I think, for ~90% of them it will. So for that time we should have established rules for IP market :) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The value of an IP address is the ability to receive packets from elsewhere addressed to it. Without a presence in a routing table someplace, that doesn't happen so the IP address is of no value. Better give it back so someone else who can instill it with exactly that value in that case...
I have an IP block that is not in the global routing table, but present only in some IXes and private peerings, and it is a feature. This is not mine invention, there is a lot of that blocks. Hint: see the number of prefixes in the "full-view" taken from different parts of the Net. It will be slightly different. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
And we've tried appealing to people's better natures to return unused space. The result confirmed what most of us thought already: people mostly don't have better natures.
Then how do you explain the success that IANA have had in recovering address space as reported by Bill Manning and now, Leo Vegoda, over the past 10 years or so?
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
What proof do you have that this was simple? --Michael Dillon
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
And we've tried appealing to people's better natures to return unused space. The result confirmed what most of us thought already: people mostly don't have better natures.
Then how do you explain the success that IANA have had in recovering address space as reported by Bill Manning and now, Leo Vegoda, over the past 10 years or so?
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
What proof do you have that this was simple? Talking to Leo (and I did say "fairly simple").
Nigel
On 10/29/07 8:41 AM, "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
And we've tried appealing to people's better natures to return unused space. The result confirmed what most of us thought already: people mostly don't have better natures.
Then how do you explain the success that IANA have had in recovering address space as reported by Bill Manning and now, Leo Vegoda, over the past 10 years or so?
"low hanging fruit".
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
What proof do you have that this was simple?
14/8 was defined by the IETF to be used to interconnect X.25 networks to the Internet. As you might imagine, the addresses in that /8 weren't in particularly active use. I'll let Leo provide more details if he likes. There may one or two other /8s that IANA or the RIRs might be able to reclaim, but I wouldn't hold my breath... Regards, -drc
On 29 okt 2007, at 15:47, Nigel Titley wrote:
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been more efficient. But I'm pretty sure it's too late anyway, just like it's too late to make 240/4 usable.
On 29 Oct 2007, at 22:18, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 29 okt 2007, at 15:47, Nigel Titley wrote:
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been more efficient.
Nearly, but not quite. It was 984 addresses but your point is valid anyway. Just marking the first /22 as reserved and making the rest of the space available to the RIRs would have been easier but it isn't very neat and tidy and doesn't fit with the policy approved by the five RIR communities. At the moment the main problem with doing what you suggest is that the current global policy for allocating IPv4 space to RIRs requires us to "allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 units." 99.99% of a /8 is close but it's not 100%. Frankly, fixing things so that the policy works is probably better than waiting until the end and publicly stating that the policy is inconvenient and so we'll ignore it. Leo
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 29 okt 2007, at 15:47, Nigel Titley wrote:
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been more efficient.
But I'm pretty sure it's too late anyway, just like it's too late to make 240/4 usable.
14/8 is useable - even with an extremely small number of legacy allocations, the address block is useable. There is no OS stack that says "bad address" for 14/8, which is the essential difference between 14/8 and 240/4. Geoff
On 31 okt 2007, at 0:04, Geoff Huston wrote:
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been more efficient. But I'm pretty sure it's too late anyway, just like it's too late to make 240/4 usable.
14/8 is useable - even with an extremely small number of legacy allocations, the address block is useable. There is no OS stack that says "bad address" for 14/8, which is the essential difference between 14/8 and 240/4.
What I meant by "too late" is that a big push to get a good part of the legacy class A blocks back is probably going to take so much time that we won't have the extra space by the time that we're going to need it. Obviously getting "easy" stuff such as 14/8 back is something we can still do.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and no one much used.
Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been more efficient.
May be. But sorry, you can't enforce it now. You even have no time to make an implemented in the real life policy that can reclaim any block before free IP space will be finished. So, we have to live with market. Not only because of it. The only we can do is to make that market white and clear. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Nigel Titley wrote: (...)
buy or barter. IPv4 space has a limited life anyway. Once we hit 51% of traffic being IPv6 there will be a rapid flip-flop and IPv4 will be dead. A (...)
it seems pretty optimistic... and where can this % be measured? :-) cheers, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people!" Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
Hi Carlos, Well with the tool we developed (see my Friday presentation), hopefully we will convince a couple of ISPs in every region and we will have in a few months regional and global traffic measurements. Those ISPs don't need to have native IPv6 support, traffic is there anyway ! Regards, Jordi
De: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:24:43 +0000 (WET) Para: Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Nigel Titley wrote:
(...)
buy or barter. IPv4 space has a limited life anyway. Once we hit 51% of traffic being IPv6 there will be a rapid flip-flop and IPv4 will be dead. A (...)
it seems pretty optimistic...
and where can this % be measured? :-)
cheers,
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people!"
Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato.
Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Hi.
Well with the tool we developed (see my Friday presentation),
DevelopED? Do you plan to freely share it?
hopefully we will convince a couple of ISPs in every region and we will have in a few months regional and global traffic measurements.
We've deployed a 6TO4 relay for quite some time, which mostly serves all portuguese ISPs that accept 192.88.99.0/24 from us, but no work about monitoring it has been done so far. :-)
Those ISPs don't need to have native IPv6 support, traffic is there anyway !
I don't really like the first part of your sentence. :-))
Regards, Jordi
Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people!" Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
Gert, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Gert Doering > Sent: 23 October 2007 11:26 > To: Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R > Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy > Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:16:11AM +0100, > michael.dillon@bt.com wrote: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > > > In effect, this proposal enables a market for buying and > > selling IP address blocks. > > It is envisioned that this market is going to happen, > whether we like > it or not, and there is not much we can do against it. That doesn't sound like vision. That sounds like apathy. > But in the case that this *is* going to happen, we > would very much prefer > to have accurate records on who is holding the > address space - and this > proposal is trying to build the basis for this. This proposal enables the market. In the absence of this proposal, you might find the courts are perfectly willing to support RIPE NCC's position as the arbiter of due process, as has already happened in the US for ARIN. > (We already have the means for resource transfers > between LIRs, it's > part of the "merger and closures" document, but it's > not very well-defined > in the case of two independent LIRs doing this > without any "merger or > closure"). Not well-defined for very good reason, I'd suggest. Mat
In effect, this proposal enables a market for buying and selling IP address blocks.
It is envisioned that this market is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and there is not much we can do against it.
Envisaged by who? ICANN and the Number Resource Organization both maintain that IP addresses are not property and therefore they cannot be bought or sold. It does not matter if a few individuals disagree because a few individuals do not control many IP addresses. Most IP addresses have been allocated to publicly traded companies and these companies have an obligation to act in an ethical manner which makes it impossible for these companies to buy or sell IP addresses.
But in the case that this *is* going to happen, we would very much prefer to have accurate records on who is holding the address space - and this proposal is trying to build the basis for this.
In the case that selling does happen, and in the case that addresses are transferred for other reasons, ARIN has a policy that covers transfers. Everyone should really read that policy to see how this could be handled without violating the principles maintained by ICANN and the NRO http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight
(We already have the means for resource transfers between LIRs, it's part of the "merger and closures" document, but it's not very well-defined in the case of two independent LIRs doing this without any "merger or closure").
ARIN's policy does try to cover the general situation without being narrowly focussed on corporate mergers. I am not suggesting that RIPE should just copy ARIN, but we need to look at this poloicy proposal in context, and that includes what other RIRs are doing, the basic NRO/ICANN principles, and EU competition law. --Michael Dillon
participants (14)
-
Andy Davidson -
Carlos Friacas -
David Conrad -
David Croft -
Elmar K. Bins -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Geoff Huston -
Gert Doering -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jarno Lähteenmäki -
Jeroen Massar -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Leo Vegoda -
Mark Pace Balzan -
matthew.ford＠bt.com -
Max Tulyev -
McTim -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nigel Titley -
Per Heldal -
Randy Bush