[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Mon Jul 6 20:20:22 CEST 2009
On Jul 6, 2009, at 8:14 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Marco, > > On Jul 6, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> Haven't got a clue on what current prises are for /24 on the black >> market. > > I've seen prices ranging from US $<hundreds> to US $<low thousands>, > but that was some time ago. > >> But we all know that not any amount of money will create more >> addresses as we currently have, so why not 1,000,000,000,000,000 >> dollar. > > It isn't about creating more addresses. It is about using the > existing addresses more efficiently. Given the widespread > availability of NAT, how many addresses does the average > organization actually need? Two (one for their NAT gateway, one for > their publicly available services)? Particularly if they have a > financial incentive to use address space more efficiently? > Being more efficient is only the start. In the end is 7 billion people vs less then 4 billion addresses. Rhere simply ain't a way around it, face it and deploy IPv6 or somewhere somebody will pay these prices (or more likely start a war). MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]