nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Reg does 240/4
From: Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:06:25 +0000
Allocating 240/4 only temporarily drives down pricing until it's all assigned, then we're all back at square one. Ya know what does not put us back square one, nor waste our time? Implementing IPv6. Ryan Hamel ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org> on behalf of Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:49 AM To: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. Hi David, I agree with the fact that introducing this space has the very real risk of it being obtained by the highest bidder. Perhaps I may be naive in believing that we have a possible chance to delegate this space wisely and prevent it from being exhausted at a rather rapid rate, however I can only hope that people will see the potential benefit that this could bring, and policy not being changed to benefit the larger players in the space. IP resources were never intended to become a commodity, rather a tool that allowed people to globally connect. It should never have become a commodity, and it's a shame that it is being treated as such with a price tag put on it. Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:03 PM To: Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au> Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher, On Feb 13, 2024, at 4:14 PM, Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au> wrote: This is a second chance to purposefully ration out a finite resource. Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but other than more players and _way_ more money, the dynamics of [limited resource, unlimited demand] don’t appear to have changed significantly from the first time around. However, I suspect the real roadblock you’ll face in policy discussions (aside from the folks who make their money leasing IPv4 addresses) is the argument that efforts to ration and thereby extend the life of IPv4 will continue to distort the market and impede the only useful signal to network operators regarding the costs of remaining with IPv4 compared to supporting IPv6. Good luck! Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: [External] Re: The Reg does 240/4, (continued)
- Re: [External] Re: The Reg does 240/4 Hunter Fuller via NANOG (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 richey goldberg (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Chris Adams (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher Hawker (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Tom Beecher (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher Hawker (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 David Conrad (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher Hawker (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 David Conrad (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher Hawker (Feb 14)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Ryan Hamel (Feb 14)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 David Conrad (Feb 14)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Tom Beecher (Feb 13)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Denis Fondras via NANOG (Feb 14)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher Hawker (Feb 14)
- Message not available
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christopher Hawker (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Dave Taht (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Chris Adams (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 William Herrin (Feb 15)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG (Feb 16)
- Re: The Reg does 240/4 Owen DeLong via NANOG (Feb 14)