[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi Leo,

> 
> Without speaking for or against the policy, I'd like to point out that there definitely are cases where unique addresses are required, despite not announcing the route to all of autonomous systems. There are plenty of RFCs explaining why. It should also be obvious that even if 50 /8s were recovered they would not be enough to meet demand. There are about 7 billion people on Earth and more than half do not yet have Internet access. IPv4 is not a sustainable resource.

I agree with what you say, and I did not want to bring up the idea of
"IPv4 is endless" ... that's actually the reason why I said as much as
they really need, because what would happen, if people couldn't make
that much money with V4?

I personally know hosters who say "why should we rollout IPv6, when we
can lease single IPv4-Addresses to our customers for 5 EUR a month ...
we do have a a quarter of a million addresses, whereof we lease 100k for
5 EUR a month ... meaning half a million Euro pure revenue each month
... so tell me one reason why I should stop printing money with that?"

The "big old players" which intentionally do not roll out IPv6, because
they earn much more money with V4, would finally start rolling out V6 if
this money-printer wouldn't work anymore because unused space would be
withdrawn.

BR Jens
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leo Vegoda
> 
> !DSPAM:637,55774d62133346602313544!
> 


-- 
Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team
Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b
53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
Email: jo at opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989