It seems we’re the marketplace of record. We do have some private transactions, that is, sales that take place outside of our marketplace and therefore don’t appear on the prior-sales page. That’s generally for /16 or larger, where one or both parties want custom terms that differ from our standard Terms of Use.
It’s true that prices for /16 and larger have held steadier than smaller blocks. My guess is that there has been a lot more supply of smaller blocks than /16+, driving prices down for the smaller blocks. Supply for /16s and larger is fine, but not enormous. I don’t assume that prices will remain the same. So, what about 240/4? The IPv4 market moves about 40 million addresses per year. A /4 is 268 million addresses, so if that supply became available (IETF telling IANA to distribute it to the RIRs, I assume) it would definitely affect the market for a long time. The RIRs would have to look at their post-exhaustion policies and figure out whether they still applied, or if pre-exhaustion policies should be used. I don’t have a strong opinion on this, and give credit to the authors of the proposal for working to identify any places where 240/4 would not work. I still think the Internet works better when everyone uses the same protocol, so everyone should deploy IPv6. At this point, the consumer electronics and corporate IT sectors are the major holdouts. There are still ISPs and web sites that don’t have IPv6, but it’s no longer reasonable to assert that those are failures as a group, IMHO. Lee Howard | Senior Vice President, IPv4.Global [Inline image] t: 646.651.1950 email: leehow...@hilcostreambank.com<mailto:leehow...@hilcostreambank.com> web: www.ipv4.global<http://www.ipv4.global/> twitter: twitter.com/ipv4g<https://twitter.com/ipv4g/> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+leehoward=hilcostreambank....@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 10:28 AM To: Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments. Evidence to support Tom's statement: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ________________________________ From: "Tom Beecher" <beec...@beecher.cc<mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> To: "Brian Knight" <m...@knight-networks.com<mailto:m...@knight-networks.com>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:31:42 PM Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 $/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since. On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote: > I've said it before, and I'll say it again: > > The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is > Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4. > > If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere* > within a month. As others have noted, and to paraphrase a long-ago quote from this mailing list, I'm sure all of Netflix's competitors hope Netflix does that. I remain hopeful that the climbing price of unique, available IPv4 addresses eventually forces migration to v6. From my armchair, only through economics will this situation will be resolved. > --lyndon -Brian
