At 11:56 PM 13/10/2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
