IPv4 address block
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Sat Jan 13 14:39:28 UTC 2024
Matthew Petach wrote on 13/01/2024 00:27:
> In light of that, I strongly suspect that a second go-around at
> developing more beneficial post-exhaustion policies might turn out
> very differently than it did when many of us were naively thinking
> we understood how people would behave in a post-exhaustion world.
Naah, any future relitigation would end up the same if new ipv4
addresses fell out of the sky and became available. The ipv4 address
market turned out exactly like most people suspected: it was a market;
people bought and sold addresses; the addresses cost money; there
were/are some sharks; life moved on.
> If you limit each requesting organization to a /22 per year, we can
> keep the internet mostly functional for decades to come,
at least in the ripe ncc service region, all this proved was that if the
cost of registering a company (or LIR) and applying for an allocation
was lower than the market rate of ipv4 addresses, then people would do that.
The root problem is unavoidable: ipv4 is a scarce resource with an
inherent demand. Every policy designed to mitigate against this will
create workarounds, and the more valuable the resource, the more
inventive the workaround.
In terms of hard landings vs soft landings, what will make ipv6 succeed
is how compelling ipv6 is, rather than whether someone created a policy
to make ipv4 less palatable. In particular, any effect from a hard
landing compared would have been ephemeral.
Nick
More information about the NANOG
mailing list