mailing list archives
RE: IP addresses are now assets
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:56:35 -0600 (CST)
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com () nanog org Fri Dec 2 13:29:31 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter () ukbroadband com>
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>,
<bicknell () ufp org>
Subject: RE: IP addresses are now assets
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:29:43 +0000
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner () cluebyfour org]
Sent: 02 December 2011 19:26
To: Leo Bicknell
Subject: Re: IP addresses are now assets
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:04:23PM -0500,
Michael R. Wayne wrote:
After negotiating with multiple prospective buyers, Cerner Corp.
agreed to buy the Internet addresses for $12 each. Other bids
as low as $1.50 each, according to a bankruptcy court filing.
Someone should tell Cerner Corp you can still get them for free,
and thus they overpaid by oh, $12 an address!
I'm waiting for someone to come back and balk at $12/address, and try
reduce the number of addresses they buy, forgetting that pesky powers-
business: "In the interest of containing the cost of the deal, XYZ
agreed to buy 27,000 addresses instead of the original 65,536."
That will be a definite facepalm moment.
So about a /18 a /19 a /21 and a /23 then ;-)
Methinks it ought to be restricted to some combination of a /17, a /19, a /23,
a /29, and a /31. It's all 'prime' number-space, after all. <groan.