Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
Robert,
On Feb 27, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Robert Gray wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
c) say to the customer "Here is one (1) IPv4 address. Go NAT your
enterprise"
d) say to the customer "Here is a /48 for IPv6. Go NAT your
enterprise"
There are enough NAT unfriendly protocols for this to be really
unattractive to some clients once they find out the limitations.
It is often surprising to me how much less unattractive options
become when the alternative is either "pay more" or "do without". As
for (d), that's just a function of "dual stack" and the fact that
IPv6 isn't ubiquitous.
To be clear, I'm not arguing this is a good (or bad) approach, rather
that within a relatively small number of years, it will be the most
common approach because the alternative is to pay more or do without.
e) wave money around and say to the black market "name your price!"
I wonder on thinking about this how practical a black (or white)
market would be given the minimum size of a routable block.
I suspect that's something the market will work out.
I guess it really only applies to the historical allocations.
In a few years, all IPv4 allocations will be historic.
I think you might have missed one:
f) Brief their lawyers to go after the RIR's and access the 'reserve'.
Yep. Although at some point, all the lawyers in the world won't be
able to get space from the 'reserve' pool as it won't exist...
Rgds,
-drc