Or they just decide that putting their existing customers behind CGN and
selling their IPv4 addresses is a better business decision than keeping
their customers on globally unique IPv4 address per customer.
Every company / organization decide for their own business and there is no
question there.
Problem is in the way we look at IP address spaces, allocated to different
organizations.
There are 2 ways to look at it:
1- IP allocations are property of an organization ( so naturally, they can
decide what to do with it )
2- IP allocations are indeed property of IANA. They distributed it through
RIRs & LIRs to end-users, free of charge. And end-users are entitle to use
these allocations, as long as their initial criteria are valid. And if
initial criteria are not valid anymore, RIRs may take back the address space
according to their policies.
I think you are looking at it according to 1, while I am looking at it
according to 2.
I am looking at the whole IPV4 address space, as property of whole globe. So
organizations holding allocations
are not OWNER of IPs. Allocations have been given to them to use for their
networks, not to start selling them in stuck markets.
If a company decides to put their customers behind CGN and free some part of
their allocations / assignments,
they should return free address space to RIRs, so they can fulfill other
requests.
Anyway, as Sander explained, for now selling IP addresses is alright
according to existing policy. And there were lots of talks there.
I am not suggesting a new proposal, I just had problem understanding the
concept of selling IPs, so I asked. ( I'm still against selling IPs )
Kind Regards,
Saeed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:44 PM
To: Saeed Khademi
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment
ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, Saeed Khademi wrote:
Now if some organizations are selling their IP address spaces, it means
they don't need them. Even worse, they may have been lying in the first
place.
Or they just decide that putting their existing customers behind CGN and
selling their IPv4 addresses is a better business decision than keeping
their customers on globally unique IPv4 address per customer.
The only reason they would be doing this work (and possible customer
experience degradation) is that the IPv4 address has value. So if IPv4
address has no value (as per your implication above), then this work will
never get done.
So your proposal will never work in real life unless you start to change
the definion of "justification", for instance to say that we no longer
consider giving IPv4 GUA to residential consumers or mobile handsets
justifiable, and that all that space must be handed back. I don't see how
you will ever get consensus for that policy change though.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
