nanog mailing list archives
Re: 206.82.160.0/22
From: gih () aarnet edu au (Geoff Huston)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 20:23:12 +1000
At 5:06 PM 26/9/95, David Conrad wrote:
I'm arguing that economics have to enter the picture for any application for IP address space a registry receives.See RFC 1744 for more details. Note that option c is theoretically not available -- according to current and likely future guidelines, buying/selling of addresses is essentially disallowed, addresses should be returned to the orgininating registry to be reallocated as criteria are met. I would be very interested in hearing people's opinions regarding this aspect of current allocation guidelines.
I would observe that option c) happens today - its just that the parties involved don't inform the InterNIC (becuase if you try to undertake the transfer of title the InterNIC simply takes the address space away. The picture is somewhat complex in so far as IP address space has intrinsic value _as long as it is routeable_. Given the interaction between the costs of renumbering, vs the cost of establishing an entry in the routing tables, vs the cost of dynamic address translation then its not obvious whether pricing policies should apply to address space allocation, routing table entries or both!
Current thread:
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22, (continued)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Ehud Gavron (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Dave Siegel (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Ehud Gavron (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Tony Li (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Nick Williams (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 David Conrad (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Guy Middleton (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Sean Doran (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Sean Doran (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Geoff Huston (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Geoff Huston (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Robert Elz (Sep 26)