On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 03:14:50PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere > >> > Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic > >> > region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment . I don't make enough to cover > >> > that > >> > >> Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an > >> address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into > >> the DFZ... > > > > assuming facts not in evidence there ... but ok. > > Hi Bill, > > If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have > RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free > for your use.
er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywhere... it is a fiction. no prefix in existance, save 127.0.0.0, ::1, and 0.0.0.0 is globally reachable. reachability depends on your POV, where "you" is roughly the number of addressable entities on the planet. folks announce a route to their peers, and last i checked, no ASN peered with -everyone-. that said, transient connectivity is even more popular now than it was twenty years ago. folks connect/disconnect/reconnet all the time. this is the primary reason why Globally Unique Addresses are so important - one cna nver tell when they will need to peer with someone else in the future. > > >> ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers > >> should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the > >> ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4 > >> addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game. > >> Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from > >> months to decades. > > > > cool. I've used the transfer policy with limited success. > > I guess the interesting thing in your statement (and I suspect > > a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order) is "should an open market > > come into existence" ... how do you see that happening? > > eBay? last ebay transaction I saw was a posting by Martin Levy - and it was withdrawn after some urging by ARIN. Addresses are not sellable property. So what would an "open market" be in... rights to use? (come to think of it, I have seen submarine cable IRUs for sale on eBAY) > Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole > lot of help to come into being. Ok... lets say there is a pent up supply ... and no good way to let those with demand know the supply exists. I'll consider acting as the "address Yenta" --- if folks have prefixes they are not using, and would like to let others know there is availablity, I'll be glad to be the "go between". > > but more to my point. If I'm using a single /24 out of my /20 > > (using an antiquated example) - would there be: > > > > ) interest in the other 15 /24s > > ) how would that interest be expressed (so I would know about it) > > ) complaints from the folks running w/o default about > > the new prefixes on offer? ** > > The basic plan (ARIN NRPM section 8.3) is: > > 1. Request and be approved for addresses from ARIN (even though ARIN > won't have any addresses to give). > > 2. Find (pay) someone who has ARIN-managed addresses that they're > willing to give up in the quantity you want. > > 3. Current holder releases addresses to ARIN in the requested (paid) > quantity with instructions to provide those addresses to the > already-authorized recipient (in #1). > > 4. ARIN updates the registration accordingly. I remember this. it suffers from two primary weaknesses: ) finding someone (see my address-Yenta offer above) ) this only works within the ARIN region. > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel <dhet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on > > demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would > > ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. > > 137 billion prefixes would crush the DFZ routers of course, but as we > all know the routing table isn't ARIN's lookout. :-P > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the > >> event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled > >> throughout. > > > > Let's clarify here, however... > > Nothing guarantees you that ARIN can not do so if you don't have any > > contract with them. > > Owen, > > Your uneducated YANAL opinion about the governing law in the matter is > duly noted and filed beside my own differing viewpoint. Until and > unless ARIN attempts to forcibly reclaim a block of legacy addresses > from its legacy holder, the question remains theoretical. > > > > The point being that > > while I think continuing to provide a free ride to IPv4 legacy holders > > is a good idea, there is no reason to continue that concept into the > > IPv6 world. > > The reason is that it could be structured to increase the rate of IPv6 > deployment, to the benefit of all. To what degree that would achieve > value for cost is debatable, but it certainly qualifies as more than > "no reason." > > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 >