[address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

Hello Tom,

Le 10/05/2016 17:51, Tom Hill a écrit :
> Are there any figures to back up the assertion that "crooks" are
> eating away at 185/8? I don't think I've ever seen any concrete
> evidence of a widespread problem as yet.

Did you recently got an inetnum ? Nowadays, the minute you get a block,
you get 10 free e-mails asking to lease a /24 out of it.

When your business is growing and your network is running off address
space' vapors, you're looking out for any oportunity to recover unused
adresses (really easy to do when you only got a mere /22 : usually
none). Then turn to the "Transfer (Blackmarket) Listing Service" and get
indecent (side) offers for newly assigned prefixes put up for rent.

I don't need numbers to see there's something wrong : a market for
adress space must NOT exist. The listing service must be dismantled, and
no one should be able to profit from wrongly privatised public domain,
period.

Unused inetnums must return to pool, and LIR's able to justify their
needs _periodicaly_ should be able to get some more juice off the
available pool, if they're also contributing to getting us all out of
this mess by actively promoting IPv6.

Or am I a bit too commie for this discussion ?

-- 
Jérôme Nicolle

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160510/b5ce00c3/attachment.sig>