[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
Robert,
I am not sure if your stated goal is achievable as proposed.
On 26 Sep 2007, at 21:28, Robert Gray wrote:
[...]
You would hope that very conservative allocation criteria for the
last /8(s)
would then be adopted in each region.
[...]
Here is a suggestion.
The last one or two /8's be only allocated to those who have not
had an
allocation before. The initial allocation process/criteria would
remain
essentially unchanged.
[...]
The size and limitations on the initial allocation (even if these
remained
unchanged) would make it unlikely or at least improbable that it
would be worth
while to set up a whole new organiastion and join APNIC in disguise
so to speak
to obtain one.
Benefits
For me the worst effect of V4 exhaustion has always been that it
entrenches a
haves/have nots situation. No new businesses can start without a
sever2e
handicap (i.e. no V4 space).
This suggestion, while I am sure it has flaws, puts the pressure on
established
holders starting soon or very soon, while allowing new entrants to
get enter
into the game.
I'm sure this has holes. Feel free to point them out to me gently :)
A quick web search for company registration services in APNIC's
service region suggests that it is possible to register a new company
in some countries in less than half a day and for less than US$100.
It also seems that the current requirements for obtaining an initial
allocation are likely to be more onerous to a new entrant than to an
established player with a need for additional IPv4 address space.
I am not sure whether large numbers of LIRs under a single management
is a risk worth defending against, though. I suppose that depends on
the value of IPv4 space and the risk posed by new market entrants.
Perhaps someone with a better grasp of markets than me could comment?
Regards,
Leo Vegoda
Manager, Number Resources - IANA
