IPv6 news

Fri Oct 14 06:39:39 UTC 2005

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

>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com 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
>>form.
>
>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.