[AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!

[Tom Paseka]

High usage = 2.5% (source: http://labs.apnic.net/index.shtml)

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Zone Networks - Joel <
joel at zonenetworks.com.au> wrote:

> Hi Brad,  and anyone else that is dual stack****
>
> ** **
>
> How much traffic are you are seeing via your ipv6 network currently ?****
>
> ** **
>
> J****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:
> ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Brad Evans
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 January 2013 6:31 PM
> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] /16 for sale.... well not really but why not!****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, while it's certainly not a solution, you can't say that the
> equivalent of 200,000+ unallocated /24's is of no use to some networks
> right now.  I'd put my hand up for a few more.  This would be another /22
> for every AS, with some to spare.
>
> One could argue that feeding the IPv4 pool removes the incentive to go
> dual stack, but we already have gone dual stack and still have a
> requirement for IPv4 because others haven't.
>
> -Brad
>
> ****
>
> On 25/01/2013 6:22 PM, Joshua D'Alton wrote:****
>
> I had some nice examples of why it would last more than just a couple of
> months, but chrome crashed and it has been gone into enough. It would work
> though for the majority of smaller companies, most of the exhaustion comes
> from the large companies, not the small ones. And its the large companies
> who can afford v6, while the smaller companies cannot so much. You only
> need to look at v6 implementation to see this.****
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Skeeve Stevens <
> skeeve+ausnog at eintellego.net> wrote:****
>
> Exactly, ****
>
> ** **
>
> So recovering anything, is of no use or point whatsoever as we'd be back
> in the same position within a couple of months, regardless of
> justification, price, and so on.****
>
> ** **
>
> ...Skeeve
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd****
>
> skeeve at eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net ****
>
> Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve****
>
> facebook.com/eintellego ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve ****
>
> twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net****
>
> ****
>
> The Experts Who The Experts Call****
>
> Juniper - Cisco – IBM - Brocade - Cloud****
>
> -----****
>
> Check out our Juniper promotion website!  eintellego.mx****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Julien Goodwin <ausnog at studio442.com.au>
> wrote:****
>
> I did some analysis of this a while back:
>
> http://laptop006.livejournal.com/52380.html
>
> My summary was:
> "In terms of the coming IPv4 exhaustion we have 817 allocated /16's
> completely unused, for over 5.3M IP addresses, or ~3.2 entire /8's,
> giving, at the current consumption rate[6], just under two and a half
> months more IPv4[7]."
>
> On 25/01/13 16:58, Daniel Pearson wrote:
> > With all the interest in IP’s I thought it would be good to share this
> > little story.
> >
> >
> >
> > A while back 6-8 months ago I did some digging and found a spare /16 not
> > being used…. Yep that’s right a /16 with not one active resource on it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I approached the owner who is no longer in business but found the
> > administrators and asked if they can release it back to the pool and at
> > the same time transfer me a /20. They refused point blank and said they
> > would be holding onto it as it could one day be worth lots!
> >
> >
> >
> > After talking with APNIC about it I was told *(verbally) that they can
> > hold onto them even if they have no proven use for them…. So I wonder
> > how many of these are out there.
> >
> >
> >
> > What really annoys me is we are running out and are using every address
> > sparingly and here is a company who no longer exists holding onto a /16
> > as one day it might be worth something….. go figure.
> >
> >
> >
> > How many other examples of this exist?
> >
> >
> >
> > Discuss!
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog****
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> AusNOG mailing list****
>
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net****
>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130125/92912762/attachment.html>