[address-policy-wg] Re: Easy to remember IP-address

Jim Reid wrote:

> I'm not sure Shane that an allocation of vanity addresses would fit
> with these goals. If it does, then fine. Though I'm doubtful. If
> there were "too many" vanity assignments, that may well fragment the
> unused space in a way that prevents another LIR getting a contiguous
> allocation that's big enough for their genuine technical needs. It
> might also encourage a land-grab by people gobbling up vanity space
> that they don't actually need in the hope that they could sell it on
> later.

Jim, I fully understand this concern. An overly large number of
assignments might fragment the address space and lead to people trying
take advantage of an opportunity to resell addresses. Something like
Cybersquatting that is practiced with domain names. However I think
that the RIPE community is capable of stopping that.

That would require formal and very serious requirements for
requesting vanity addresses for certain projects that will benefit
the people. Honestly, I'm not even sure that there will be so many
people interested in getting such ip-addresses if the process is a
formal and not a simple one.

Besides, we would very much like for our
request to be reviewed by the committee from RIPE NCC in a speacial
manner. Because we're requesting these addresses not for resale or
direct monetary benefit and think that if we're given them all
parties are going to win.

We're trying to make the internet a safer
place for millions of people and improve the present technical
infrastructure at the same time by creating a distributed network of
available and effective DNS-servers in Russia and Europe. I can't
speak for Europe but in Russia and its neighboring countries the
existing DNS-structure has a lot of problems such as slow channels
and outdated equipment, lack of DNSSEC support and protection from
attacks. All this we want to change.

--
Kind regards,
Sergey Gotsulyak