[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Tore Anderson wrote:

> So imagine you're an LIR. You've just spent 1 million euros on a 
> good-as-new /16. What on Earth would cause you to then go ahead and 
> «assign it without any control»?

Exactly.

There is no need to push conservation for IPv4 from the outside anymore. 
RIPE and other RIRs should keep the documentation up to date and let 
people trade their addresses and use them as they see fit.

IPv4 is exhausted. The stone is bled try. Stop trying to squeeze it. Let 
people who want to stay in IPv4 land pay for the privilege. There is IPv6 
addresses at low-low prices, let the people who go that route pay for some 
of the (potentially higher) investment by either selling, or not having to 
buy IPv4 addresses.

PS. I personally believe the prices some brokers are trying to sell 
addresses are way too high. If the price was USD 5-20 per IPv4 address (as 
they seem to think), I believe there will be a lot of sellers. I have yet 
to hear someone wanting to *buy* at those price points, only sellers. 
Those price points would pay for a lot of CGN boxes and still make a hefty 
profit.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se