Christopher, On Feb 14, 2024, at 4:49 AM, Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: > 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.
You’re mixing agendas. In earlier messages, you had argued the address space should be provided to "new entrants.” However, if IP resource were intended to be a tool that allows people to globally connect, then the age/size/previous holdings of the organization obtaining the address space shouldn’t matter: what matters is whether it is used for connectivity. Indeed, if you want to facilitate the greatest amount of connectivity, it can be (and has been) argued the allocations should be made to the larger players since they have more resources to put the address space into use, greater reach, larger marketing departments, etc. (These are the same arguments made at various RIR policy meetings prior to runout any time anyone suggested limitations on IPv4 address allocations. The nice thing about history repeating itself is that you know when to go out and get popcorn.) > 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. I suspect any limited resource with unlimited demand is going to end up here. You’re arguing against markets. Good luck with that. Regards, -drc
