[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:49PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> Given a scenario where LIR A has addresses which they no longer need,
> and LIR B needs addresses but the RIPE free pool is empty, then the only
> motivation that I can see for changing the current process is to allow
> LIR A to sell their addresses in a secret financial transaction.

This seems somewhat distorted to me.

Without the policy change, that transaction would need to be done secretly.

With the proposed policy change, it can (and should) be done openly, because
you *can* do it openly, and document it.

I can't see why "with that change, the chance that someone makes money out
of it" is higher - it might actually hamper the black market enough that
less money flows.


(For the records: I work for a LIR that has some unused addresses in
its allocations from the RIPE NCC, but I claim that the blocks are 
fragmented enough that the chance to sell any sort of useful contiguous
block is near zero.  Big Telcos with large ranges of dynamically assigned
blocks have a far easier stance here than small ISPs that would actually
need to renumber customers to free a useful block.)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  110584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279