Hi David, I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of it being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing that we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and prevent it from being exhausted at a rather rapid rate, however I can only hope that people will see the potential benefit that this could bring, and policy not being changed to benefit the larger players in the space.
IP resources were never intended to become a commodity, rather a tool that allowed people to globally connect. It should never have become a commodity, and it's a shame that it is being treated as such with a price tag put on it. Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:03 PM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher, On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource. Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but other than more players and _way_ more money, the dynamics of [limited resource, unlimited demand] don’t appear to have changed significantly from the first time around. However, I suspect the real roadblock you’ll face in policy discussions (aside from the folks who make their money leasing IPv4 addresses) is the argument that efforts to ration and thereby extend the life of IPv4 will continue to distort the market and impede the only useful signal to network operators regarding the costs of remaining with IPv4 compared to supporting IPv6. Good luck! Regards, -drc
