In this analogy RIPE need to handle that. I think not a good think if old/big telcos/ISP's are holding many ipv4 address, because they can. This also not helping to incraise IPv6 penetration, especially for end users (costumer internet connections, etc). (by the way, also i don't think it is normal, some old organisation/companys in US holding /8, because back in the '90's when they received ipv4 exhausing doesnt matter) *Köszönettel:* Csárdi-Braunstein János *Email:* info@mikrovps.hu *Telefon:* +3694200210 [image: facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/Mikrovps> [image: twitter] <https://twitter.com/MikroVPS> [image: google plus] <https://plus.google.com/+MikrovpsHu> [image: linkedin] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/mikrovps> 2016-02-17 19:37 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>:
On 17 Feb 2016, at 17:17, MikroVPS wrote:
I think IP addresses as like radio frequencies (spectrum), it's limited.
You can't own/hold frequencies without using that, you need to give back to national organisation what manages that, to allocate new companies, and you can't sell that also. Why RIPE/ARIN/etc can't do this with IPv4 addresses? I not really see the difference.
I can understand your line of thought but this analogy does not work. Governments can impose laws on their businesses, the RIPE NCC can not. Also most frequencies are SOLD at GREAT VALUE to Telcos - funding governments - when thanks to the RIPE NCC model, IPs are nearly free.
So unless you are suggesting that IP address management should be governed by the ITU - and I for one does not - the RIPE NCC can only bind LIR by contractual laws .. and trying to enforce it internationally would sure be painful to watch.
Thomas