> Well, I just feel quite uncertain of the current model -- we're > basically telling IANA to find someone to build a monopoly by selling > IP addresses. Not so different from what RIRs do, of course, but at > least they pretend the addresses don't cost anything. Here we WANT > them to cost money. Monopolies and money for (pretty much) nothing > seems like a bad idea.
I am also not sure that the specification should mention monetary exchanges. It should be sufficient to mention the operational goal, i.e. make sure that addresses are not hoarded and/or wasted. > The only thing that seems to cost a significant amount of money in the > proposal is to have a possibility to get the addresses over phone, > fax, or whatever -- so that they cannot be processed automatically. If the goal is just to prevent hoarding, then there are several alternatives to monetary exchanges. The registry could implement a "human test" to check that the numbers are actually requested by a human being rather than a machine. The registry could also require solving a computer puzzle of some kind, to attach a computing cost to the request. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
