nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: Lamar Owen <lowen () pari edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:41:32 -0400
On Friday 02 April 2010 06:14:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
This is where Legacy vs. RIR becomes meaningful. Legacy holders have no contractual obligation to return unused space. RIR recipients, on the other hand, do.
Some legacy holders might, I imagine, be 'squatting' on that legacy space and are getting ready to 'sell' some to the highest bidder, generating who knows how much revenue, if their agreement allows them to do so. A few of those same legacy holders might even want to impede IPv6 uptake to make their /8 more valuable when the crunch comes. Perhaps I'm too paranoid. But I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of these possibilities (in my case, however, I have no legacy space, and wouldn't go that route even if I did).
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- Re: legacy /8 Majdi S. Abbas (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 John Palmer (NANOG Acct) (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Steve Bertrand (Apr 05)
- Re: legacy /8 Steve Bertrand (Apr 05)
- Re: legacy /8 Owen DeLong (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Larry Sheldon (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Owen DeLong (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Lamar Owen (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Jeroen van Aart (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Andrew Gray (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Owen DeLong (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 bmanning (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Cutler James R (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 Jeroen van Aart (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Jim Burwell (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Jeffrey Lyon (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 03)