Subject: RE: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:40:42 -0500 (EST)

[email-masked] wrote:

|Thomas Narten wrote:
|> why we can't make such assignments permanent. (Note: I'd agree with
|> you that the assignments shouldn't be permanent if there was a case to
|> be made that it may become necessary to reclaim them at some future
|> time. Is there?)
|> 
|
|What if someone manages to hoard the address space and then starts to sell them? Assume a bug in the system managing the allocations and someone exploiting it and getting 1/2 of the whole address space that they now "own" for good.

We are already contemplating a one-time fee per allocation.  If someone is
willing to come up with enough money to acquire 1/2 the address space (that's
a _lot_ of money for any plausible value of the one-time fee) the registry
entity will have vast resources to work out a better scheme for handing out
the remaining 1/2 of the address space.

|Maybe there should be a notion of reclaiming prefixes that should not have been allocated in the first place?

Vague "notions" like that severely devalue the prefixes, and specific wording
will likely fail to cover whatever may go wrong.  In the worst case we can
always allocate another prefix.  After all, this is only a /8.  It's not like
we are giving away another /3...

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------