[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

Mr. Curran,

Thank you for the PDF link you listed in your attached, it was a good 
read (and was also wonderfully cited).  It seems clear that the IPV4 
address space is hugely challenged as regards its availability for 
allocations (and I gather also for reallocation), but for IPV6, is 
there a chance to create the markets to which your document 
refers?  In doing so, perhaps one might solve a number of issues the 
document raises.

For example, one might coax some of the holdouts on what appears to 
be holders of grandfathered IPV4 space into trading that IPV4 space 
off for some IPV6 space.

Though the point made regarding IPV6 as being finite is clearly true, 
IPV6 still represents a huge increase in the available address space 
to be allocated for and to the Internet community.  Given its size, 
perhaps it could be divided up into grouped allocations as a 
compromise to all parties involved.  For example, something like 
"reserved space", "allocated space" and "free market space", made 
available to allocation as groups such as ARIN, the RIRs and 
governing political bodies see fit or as otherwise makes sense.

Echoing a point expressed earlier in this thread, perhaps a strong 
focus and push toward moving IPV6 migration and implementation 
forward would seemingly diminish the pain associated with the ever 
shrinking IPV4 space.

Alan Maitland
The Commerce Company

At 12:55 PM 10/14/2010, John Curran wrote:
>On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 10:30 -0400, Ernesto Rubi wrote:
> >> Someone, somewhere really ought to spend a whole semester locked in a
> >> room researching this.  If only I had graduate assistants...hehehe
> >
> > I think this will happen when somebody decides to sue somebody else
> > about ownership rights.  That could trigger a whole new industry around
> > Internet Law, not only in the US but all the other countries on the
> > planet.  I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
>It's already occurred, with the result being a District Judge 
>reconsidered their
>prior order regarding to IP addresses and instead affirming that IP 
>addresses are
>"administered in a public trust".   Relevant law article here:
>I provided this information to Ernesto, but apparently it made more sense
>to continue with the specious property thread rather than anchor it in any
>actual jurisprudence.
>John Curran
>President and CEO