[HN Gopher] The Formation of IPv4 Address Markets (2021)
___________________________________________________________________
The Formation of IPv4 Address Markets (2021)
Author : vermilingua
Score : 46 points
Date : 2022-02-03 11:49 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (circleid.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (circleid.com)
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > This additional time also allowed the IETF enough time to do
| what it does best, specifically avoiding making hard choices.
|
| Zing!
| [deleted]
| ju-st wrote:
| This is a great article (as expected considering the author). It
| is a much more nuanced take on the whole IPv4 vs IPv6 topic than
| the recurring heated discussions on HN.
| ramshanker wrote:
| Slightly tangent: Indian government has mandated all ISPs to
| upgrade all customers as IPv6 compatible by 31st December 2022.
| So India will be 100% IPv6 compatible by end of the year.
|
| Once that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if IPv4 is deprecated
| along with 2G.
| throw0101a wrote:
| "T-Mobile's path to IPv6 Only":
|
| > _For the past 10 years [US] T-Mobile has worked towards
| creating an IPv6 environment and we are now getting very close
| to our goal. Stephan presents learning on how to successfully
| enable IPv6-only using DNS64 with or without 464XLAT. He will
| do a live demo of the different IP interfaces on an Android
| handset. Finally, he will discuss and give some best practices
| on how to handle DNS, applications, and websites that are
| having issues with DNS64._
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE
|
| Apple mandated that all app in the iOS/mobile App Store had to
| support working on IPv6-only networks:
|
| * https://developer.apple.com/support/ipv6/
|
| Perhaps they should to the same thing for the macOS App Store.
| iqanq wrote:
| >Apple mandated that all app in the iOS/mobile App Store had
| to support working on IPv6-only networks:
|
| 464XLAT is allowed, so ipv4-only services work fine.
| zacwest wrote:
| iPhones on T-Mobile do not use 464XLAT, they use native
| IPv6 only. Some system frameworks like URLSession can do
| the NAT64 translation of hard-coded IPv4 addresses but it
| still goes over IPv6. In the video linked above:
| https://youtu.be/nNMNglk_CvE?t=1651
| iqanq wrote:
| Precisely what I meant is that unless you use very low
| level networking functions in your app, you will have no
| problems with that requirement even if your server is
| ipv4-only, as is my case.
| polski-g wrote:
| That Congress has not mandated IPv6 available to all ISPs in the
| country is shocking.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Congress doesn't even know what an IP address is.
| jl6 wrote:
| This is the one market where I would be happy for the cryptobros
| to move in and start hoarding. I'd almost forgive them for NFTs
| if IPv4-hodling turned out to be the thing that finally catalyzes
| the move to IPv6.
| ozim wrote:
| Unfortunately you cannot simply HODL IPv4 because authorities
| can come over and take you blocks back if they are not used.
|
| I can see an incentive to form a small time ISP as an
| investment though but that is also quite a hands on investment
| unlike NFT or some coins where you buy and keep.
| jl6 wrote:
| What counts as "not used"? If I set up some minimal websites
| hosting one ape picture per IP address, is that used? Do the
| registries have a concept of frivolous use?
| zekica wrote:
| It's counted as used if it is advertised via BGP.
| ozim wrote:
| I don't know.
|
| But even setting one ape per IP address is still quite
| hands on and involved investment, you have to know how to
| do it or you have to hire and pay someone who knows how to
| do it.
|
| Then you still have some operation cost as you probably
| cannot assign whole IP block to a single server and keeping
| server running still costs money.
|
| So I was only think about situation where you simply buy
| like /24 block and keep it.
| technothrasher wrote:
| I've got a /24 that hasn't had any use at all since about
| 1998, and in fact is registered to a company that no longer
| exists, with me as the only point of contact. Nobody has
| ever come for it. I wouldn't be overly upset if they did,
| as I don't have any use for it, but I've never felt like
| proactively giving it up either.
| hansel_der wrote:
| i feel like this is the prime example of why only around
| 200mio ipv4 addresses are seen on the internet (out of
| the possible 4b)
|
| http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3194.html
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Unfortunately you cannot simply HODL IPv4 because
| authorities can come over and take you blocks back if they
| are not used._
|
| You can lease addresses:
|
| * https://circleid.com/posts/20210608-leasing-vs-buying-
| ipv4-a...
|
| The addresses get allocated to Company A which then turns
| around and allows Company B to use them for a monthly fee and
| they become routable/pingable.
|
| If someone doesn't have enough in their CapEx budget to buy a
| block then they can put it into their OpEx.
| ozim wrote:
| But complexity of this investment is still far away from
| "buy and hold" so cryptobros won't jump on that train.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Still sinpler than credit default swaps, and CDOs, and
| options on commodities, and we have so many people
| investing in them without understanding
| throw0101a wrote:
| Perhaps someone can create an IPv4 ETF. :)
| kloch wrote:
| I'm not speaking for ARIN but their CEO John Curran told me
| ARIN has _never_ revoked address resources for any reason
| other than non-payment or fraud. As long as your original
| application for the resources was made in good faith and you
| continued to pay the registration fees, they would not take
| them away even if you are not using them anymore. This seems
| logical for functional IPv4 markets where the non-use /non-
| need is explicit in any resource being offered for sale. The
| registered organization does still need to be "in business"
| (registered in good standing with the state corporation
| commission or equivalent). If the entity is dissolved then
| the resources automatically revert back to ARIN and it may be
| difficult or impossible to sell to a third party.
|
| It is important to keep ARIN updated with any organization
| name changes, reorganization, or M&A actions as they happen.
| Going back 10+ years to update those changes, especially if
| there are several, can be extremely difficult. In large
| companies the network folks that manage ARIN resources are
| often not even be aware of those changes until they interact
| with ARIN again. That has bitten me several times in my
| career.
|
| In the old days before IPv4 runout they could and would
| refuse to issue _additional_ IP blocks if you did not show
| sufficient utilization of your _most recent_ allocation. It
| was also not unusual for them to reduce the allocation size
| requested based on how fast you had utilized your most recent
| block.
| wmf wrote:
| Hoarding IP addresses probably _is_ fraud because to get
| IPs you have to swear that they will be put into use within
| a year (IIRC). I don 't consider IP leasing to be hoarding
| because the IPs are in use.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > Unfortunately you cannot simply HODL IPv4 because
| authorities can come over and take you blocks back if they
| are not used.
|
| Define "not used". I know several LIRs that have in excess of
| /20s allocated to them, and do not advertise their ranges to
| the (Internet) DFZ, but instead use them on private
| interlinks between themselves and other third parties.
|
| The only requirement to be given address space by an RIR is a
| requirement for global uniqueness.
|
| Just because you don't see it on the Internet (or any other
| network you use), doesn't mean it's not in use.
|
| IPv4 is knocking on death's door, and the value will drop
| once the DoD gives (6 years) notice that they've migrated all
| their services to IPv6, thus making 10? /8s available for
| sale and:
|
| 1. flooding the market
|
| 2. proving that there's nothing left holding back to run an
| ipv6-only network, resulting in wide scale migrations for
| networks that haven't migrated yet.
| phil21 wrote:
| > Unfortunately you cannot simply HODL IPv4 because
| authorities can come over and take you blocks back if they
| are not used.
|
| No longer true, depending on the RIR and their exact
| policies. At least RIPE and ARIN see leasing blocks as proper
| usage. The only thing you might run into a snag with would be
| if you had zero customers leasing blocks within the region
| the RIR is responsible for. For example, if you have a /19
| assigned to ARIN right now and want to lease it to a European
| entity announcing it from Europe, you might need to transfer
| it to RIPE so the proper party gets paid membership dues.
|
| It's certainly more hands on than holding equities (or
| crypto), much like renting out a few apartments is more
| effort than simply holding an REIT. Quite doable for anyone
| with an ISP/infrastructure background and capital to put into
| acquiring ipv4 blocks. It's actually much easier then renting
| out real estate (I do both), as it's mostly just jumping on
| tickets that need you to click a couple buttons every so
| often. If you find some stable/large lessees, it's more or
| less set it and forget it for N number of years.
|
| I'm not sure I'd advise people to jump into this market when
| IPv4 is hitting $50 per address, but I've also thought the
| "top" was in years ago so what do I know :)
|
| I've pondered for a few years now somehow offering "IPv4
| investors" fractional ownership of an LLC stood up to lease
| out address blocks - I just never had the time to get through
| the legal/tax complexity of having 50-100 partners all
| pooling capital. Banks are surprisingly willing to finance
| these acquisitions as well, assuming you have an industry
| track record.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > I'm not sure I'd advise people to jump into this market
| when IPv4 is hitting $50 per address, but I've also thought
| the "top" was in years ago so what do I know :)
|
| You and me both. I sold half my IPv4 holding at $20 (having
| bought in at $8), and am both annoyed and glad that I only
| did half, since I can now afford to sell the remaining 25%
| at a high premium, and maintain my remaining /24 and ASN as
| a vanity project for many decades.
| [deleted]
| mshinas wrote:
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > We continue to apply the economics of abundance to IPv6 address
| markets.
|
| I'm an ordinary retail customer of my ISP, which is IP6-enabled.
| So they allocated me a /56 prefix.
|
| That certainly looks to me like "the economics of abundance".
| Even if every device, appliance, light-fitting and even door in
| my home had its own global IP address, I'd never use more than a
| tiny part of that allocation.
| ithkuil wrote:
| There are 2^24 times more /56 networks than entire ipv4 address
| spaces.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Point taken.
|
| Still, it's the "economics of abundance" to automatically
| dole out huge amounts of address space to someone who can't
| demonstrate the need for more than a few dozen addresses.
| mgbmtl wrote:
| A /56 is a good fit for a residential ISP. Initially some
| ISPs gave out a /48.
|
| A /56 gives you 256 subnets. A /60 only 16. I'm happy they
| are erring on the side of potential innovation. ISPs have
| no idea how IPv6 will be used.
|
| A few years back, I was running a ton of various services
| from home, various APs, community mesh network, services
| over VPN. It worked well on a /56. (Thank you Teksavvy)
| denton-scratch wrote:
| If You're running multiple APs (with IP6 over wifi) and a
| community mesh, you have a demonstrable need for space. I
| have a single AP and a few strands of CAT5.
|
| Can you even run IP6 over wifi? I've never looked into
| it. It's never crossed my mind to try to use any public
| IP address on a wifi network.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| IP and MAC are separate layers. So yes, ipv6 works fine
| over 802.11 as long as your router supports ipv6 (I think
| by now all home routers probably do)
| MayeulC wrote:
| The wi-fi access point doesn't even need to be
| IPv6-aware, I'm pretty sure. Most can be set to a
| "bridge" mode that should work fine (note that I did not
| test this personally).
|
| But even cheap wireless routers I bought 10 years ago
| support IPv6, and I doubt you really want to use that on
| a modern Wi-Fi network.
| wmf wrote:
| /56 leaves room for them to upsell /48 on the "pro" or
| "business" tier. ;-)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-05 23:02 UTC)