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

On 13/06/2008 3:55, "Nigel Titley" <nigel at titley.com> wrote:

> Michael Dillon said:
>> To get REVERSAL, where companies start returning unused IPv4 addresses,
>> we need a lot of IPv6 deployment.
>>
>> Tinkering with RIPE policies is NOT a substitute for IPv6 deployment.
>>
> I don't think anyone, least of all the authors of 2007-08, thinks that
> it is a substitute for IPv6 deployment. Most people feel that this is
> the proper solution in an ideal world. However most of us feel that IPv6
> deployment to large consumer DSL networks is just not going to happen
> before IPv4 runs out and in that case some mechanism for recovery of
> unused space will be needed. Experiences with trying to get existing
> holders of unused space to hand it back without financial incentives
> (and regardless of what RIR policies say on the matter) make me
> pessimistic that altruism will save the day.

I agree that there is a benefit in allowing a financial incentive to
encourage transfers of address space to where it can be used more
efficiently. But I think that any hope of providing enough for large
consumer DSL networks to continue growing at a steady rate, let alone a
similar to rate what we see now, is very optimistic.

Maybe I am unduly pessimistic about what is likely to be made available.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda