I just hope this goes one step further in promoting IPv6 which is taking an inordinately long time to get moving. No-one should be allowed to make money from something they got for free at a time when no one realised there was going to be an address space issue.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
RE: Will there be an IP address black market?
"No-one should be allowed to make money from something they got for free"
Interesting concept. I'm not sure I agree with it, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.
"No-one should be allowed to
"No-one should be allowed to make money from something they got for free"
So suppose i have a brilliant literary gift, but no one had realized it till i had release a book that sold in millions. Do I have a right to take an advantage of that?
IPv6
I don't understand why there will be a need for IPv4 addresses when v6 is going to create more than enough addresses for everything to be on the Internet.
If you supply the market with more addresses than could possibly be needed, why would IPv4 addresses be in such high demand?
IPv6 is still broken in Vista
As long as the reliability and security of IPv6 is in question there will be demand for IPv4 space.
In addition, for many organizations this represents a significant capital outlay in changing out all of thier infrastructure.
Many organizations in the U.S. have eliminated or outsourced the expert staff who would have done this three to five years ago and are looking at a Y2K-like consulting fee scenario to get from here to there.
It is one thing to make such a change to a better solution, it is quite another to make such a change in a market where the dominant player has yet again missed the mark on security and compliance with standards.
Until Microsoft gets their act together we're going to see a market for IPv4 address space.
Given what we are seeing in the way of security issues on Vista I think it will be a while before anyone wants to trust their enterprise to IPv6.
Nobody wants to be the first casualty, and who can blame them.
As long as the cost of obtaining IPv4 address space is less than perceived risk or the hardware replacement costs for functioning IPv4 infrastructure you are going to see demand for this address space.
Security issues?
"Given what we are seeing in the way of security issues on Vista I think it will be a while before anyone wants to trust their enterprise to IPv6."
Could you be specific? Because I think if you remove emotion from the equation Vista is fundamentally a much better OS.
But don't take my word for it...
Most resistance to Vista I see is cultural - it's "Different". Yes, there are a few technical issues - mainly software compatibility (which shouldn't be a surprise), but over all Vista is leaps and bounds a better operating system - especially for a corporate environment. The management tools built into Vista make XP almost a toy by comparison.
Oh yeah, Vista has a pretty decent IPV6 stack, and so does Mac OS X and Linux. The real issue is with the network equipment vendors (primarily Cisco). Until all pieces of a network are IPV6 compliant, it's pretty hard to make the switch. The analogy to Y2K is a good one - except with IPv6 there is no drop dead date - no zero hour to spur progress. I wouldn't be surprised if portions of the Internet never make the transition.
RE: Will there be an IP address black market?
ARIN is missing another way to re-claim and re-home IPv4 addresses. There are companies and schools who have ALOT of excess address space in the form of A and, mostly B blocks. If the registrars reviewed the allocated blocks and required those holding the large blocks to justify keeping them they would get a large number of address blocks back. Most people are using NAT internally so the B blocks they got years ago are no longer needed. But of course they have no incentive to return them. While this proposal might help, from my experience I'd say ARIN did not require good justification for allocating B blocks in it's infancy and that is now contributing to the lack of free address blocks.
have fun
67.192.6.160 72. 5. 72. 81 72. 46. 114. 187
207. 46. 222. 209
209. 126. 252. 132
Post new comment