The UK has an entire IPv4 /8 that it isn't using

http://blog.jgc.org/2012/09/the-uk-has-entire-unused-ipv4-8-that-is.html

by jgrahamc • 14 years ago

181 124 14 years ago

blog.jgc.org

Eventually in the future, people will come to realize the over-exaggeration of running out of ipv4 addresses. The unused blocks will come out of woodwork from everywhere. Well, I hope my opinion is wrong.

wtallis• 14 years ago

There's still a finite number of IP addresses that is below all reasonable expectations for how many devices will be wanting an IP address. Reclaiming unused blocks just softens the shock by making the exhaustion less sudden and more gradual. We're still definitely going to run out.

Retric• 14 years ago

There are a little over 4 billion IPv4 addresses. If they cost even 10c / month the vast majority of them would still be unused. However, because they where free well over half of them are simply wasted and we are "running out".

SG-2• 14 years ago

By future do you mean right now where NAT is being used by some providers already? I know Rogers in Canada has all mobile devices going through NAT unless you pay a nice "VPN" fee.

Also the assigned but unused IPv4 blocks don't do anything for other providers that actually need addresses.

indiecore• 14 years ago

and that's extremely profitable for them. Why would they switch to a format that doesn't give them the easy out to gouge customers?

anonymouz2• 14 years ago

So a home network will be NAT'ed twice. How nice, we almost got things sort of working with one NAT, now the Internet breaks again.

shinratdr• 14 years ago

Rogers only blocks PPTP VPN connections. Also it's not a VPN "fee" exactly, it's an entirely different APN. If your device doesn't allow you to manually edit the APN, you have no hope of getting your Rogers device to create a PPTP VPN connection over 3G because you cant access the internet.vpn.com APN.

However, L2TP and IPSec VPN connections work just fine over 3G on Rogers, no fees or APN changes required. So I'm not positive that NAT is the issue if I can establish the other types of VPN connections although this is hardly my area of expertise.

andreasvc2• 14 years ago

Once no more unused addresses turn up, they can start economizing on the used ones too. For example my university gives a publicly routed IP address to EVERY computer, even though most are completely firewalled off.

X-Istence3• 14 years ago

IBM has an entire /8 that they use internally for addressing their computers, none of them are publicly routable or even publicly accessible.

Even if they were to start announcing them or selling them it would be a HUGE project for IBM internally to make sure that their computers aren't going out on the web for internal resources, and it becomes an huge issue of having to renumber.

Unfortunately there is no good way to support something like that. Some companies didn't need to use the private LAN addresses because they had their own /8 and changing it now would require too much effort and work.

anonymouz2• 14 years ago

And this is exactly how it is supposed to be! The solution is switching to IPv6, not more NAT and ever more complicated routing to support the fragmentation of networks.

CrLf• 14 years ago

No traces of this block in the public Internet doesn't mean it isn't being used. It may be in use in some internal network(s) instead of a private address range (yes, that happens).

eckyptang• 14 years ago

Spot on. Some of the unused blocks owned by the MoD are actually provided to a few top secret things. It wouldn't surprise me if this is the case for this as well.

sjwright2• 14 years ago

Running NAT behind a routable IP address range AND using a totally different range for all servers, VPNs, and various sysadmin crap? I don't believe it.

There's no way they would be so diligent to use that IP range internally without even a tiny bit of evidence externally.

omh• 14 years ago

This is the government, so it's practically guaranteed that there's at least two layers of firewalls between any internal networks and the internet. If any of those layers was installed by an average IT consultancy then they'll have used NAT (because that's what you always do, right?) and hidden 51./8 completely.

toyg• 14 years ago

This. From a comment on the page:

"The 51.* addresses are in fact heavily used by DWP, but only internally. The best bit is this: for security reasons, there is a policy that in any communication, the leading octet of all such IP addresses must be redacted. Not like it's a matter of public record or anything. I did once toy with the idea of printing out the XKCD map of the IP4 address space, write "you are here" on it and pin it to the wall near DWP data networks teams, but I didn't think it would go down well."

InclinedPlane2• 14 years ago

If you're using a /8 for LAN addresses you are doing the entire internet a disservice.

forgotusername3• 14 years ago

I'm not sure about the definition of 'unused', just because a network is not visible from the Internet and has no publicly registered ASNs doesn't mean its numbers are not in private use (which AFAIK, was always a legitimate use-case for getting an allocation, and in many ways preferable to reusing RFC1918 space).

Added to that, even if it was seeing only minuscule internal use, the UK government's IT project reputation suggests the renumbering would cost at least as much as the block would sell for, assuming the project would even complete prior to the entire planet properly migrating to v6 and the block losing its value.

s_henry_paulson• 14 years ago

If there are no networks defined, as far as RIPE is concerned, it's un-used.

We just got audited for RIPE for exactly this reason, and they made us specify details for all of the networks we use on our allocation to be allowed to keep our address space.

X-Istence3• 14 years ago

That's not the case for older legacy networks. Those don't fall under the purview of RIPE as they were allocated before RIPE existed.

I'm wondering if RIPE can even do anything regarding that netblock in terms of possibly pulling it and re-allocating it.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

Under what circumstances is it the best thing for people to use otherwise routable IP addresses instead of private IP space?

forgotusername3• 14 years ago

Under all circumstances: I'm sure we've all been faced at some stage with the unplanned need to route between two RFC1918 subnets, only to find they collide, in situations as simple as a home VPN connection dialling into the office LAN, up to corporate mergers involving hundreds of thousands of desktops.

A central address registry along with 'public' allocations is the only way to avoid this kind of mess. The fact that public addresses are currently scarce doesn't make having unified addressing any less desirable (just presently impractical).

lmm2• 14 years ago

Hooray, another /8, that'll last us for a good month or so. Exponential growth people, reclaiming unused IP blocks isn't going to stop it.

And that's ignoring the possibilities that a) it's being used internally by its legitimate owners b) it's being used internally by other people. T-Mobile were seen to be (mis)using the /8 that belongs to the UK MOD for their internal networks, I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing that with this as well.

There aren't that many IPv4 addresses. There are no easy fixes. Just move to IPv6 already.

tomjen3• 14 years ago

Do you have an idea of how many IPv4 addresses that are unused or not really needed?

Between the bunch MIT got, the bunch that the military got and the bunch that IBM got, we can implement an entirely new protocol before we run out.

astrodust• 14 years ago

There's a lot of companies in the Class A club that don't necessarily need their whole allocations, but for reasons of legacy it might be difficult to displace them.

When Apple and MIT got their allocations it probably seemed pretty reasonable at the time. "How many organizations like that would be interested in the internet? A dozen? That sounds about right."

There was a time where anyone with a .net domain name would be able to apply for and probably get a /16 allocation with hardly any questions asked.

lmm2• 14 years ago

>Do you have an idea of how many IPv4 addresses that are unused or not really needed?

If by "really needed" you mean just in terms of having one address for each machine then sure there's a bunch not being used. Let's suppose half of them. Assuming a constant growth rate, that would last us for ten more years. But actually internet adoption is still accelerating. A safer assumption would be something like five.

But our routers would collapse under the strain of the enormous routing tables long before then. To be able to route efficiently subnets need to be logical regions in the network topology, not arbitrary collections of 2^n machines. CIDR, needed to mitigate against the shortage of IPv4 addresses (or more properly the shortage of subnets) has been slowing the internet down since 1993.

>Between the bunch MIT got, the bunch that the military got and the bunch that IBM got, we can implement an entirely new protocol before we run out.

Given that we've been working on IPv6 for 15 years and it's not fully deployed yet, no we can't. Even if every single address was unallocated today, we'd use them up before then.

zokier• 14 years ago

There are approximately 52 unadvertised /8s. Before the addresses ran out, we were using about one /8 per month. So even if we'd reclaim all unadvertised ranges, that would still buy us maybe 4 years (probably less considering the explosive growth in Asia).

The design of IPv6 began in the mid-90s, and RFCs were released in 96-98. Now, 15 years later, we are mostly still using IPv4.

In conclusion I think saying that we would have enough time to implement entirely new protocol if we'd reclaim unused addresses is way too optimistic. Even getting IPv6 really deployed at large in 4 years would be challenging enough.

mayneack2• 14 years ago

At MIT a 30 person living group gets 18.n.x.x

ChuckMcM3• 14 years ago

No doubt part of the strategic IP reserve :-)

There are a number of ways the IP addresses can not appear to the outside user and still be used as several have mentioned, and of course they can be for some project that isn't yet 'done' (the Coast Guard had a huge block like that as I recall) but the more interesting bit is to track the cost of getting an /24 network its inching up. At the time where the easy stuff has been reclaimed it will shoot up.

lolryan• 14 years ago

Amateur radio also has an unused IPv4 /8 block as well. That $500 mil could go quite a ways towards building a few amsats.

aidenn0• 14 years ago

Is it held by the ARRL?

X-Istence3• 14 years ago

Hey, some of us HAMS are still using AMPRNet ... not many, but some.

That being said, here is a list of people in charge of allocations: http://www.ampr.org/oldsite/amprnets.txt

TheGateKeeper2• 14 years ago

I'm currently enjoying its usage as well. Whoever said it was unused doesn't know what they're talking about.

jrockway4• 14 years ago

Who cares? IPv4 is a dead technology and this is like complaining that the UK has a bunch of fax machines in storage somewhere. 10 years ago, this would have been a waste. Now it doesn't even matter.

Even Comcast supports IPv6.

wglb2• 14 years ago

So how do you envision the transition taking place? Given that 6 and 4 talk past each other.

jrockway4• 14 years ago

The transition has sort of already happened. Most software stacks support IPv6 now, and many server hosting companies are giving out IPv6 addresses like candy. (I think I have a /48 or something for jrock.us. That's 2 to the 48th IPv4 Internets! I have a lot of computers, but not that many.)

All that's left are the clients, and the way I see that transition happening is in the low-cost sector. Sort of like an AOL where you won't have IPv4, so you'll have to access everything through a proxy except IPv6 sites. Eventually businesses will want to cater to this demographic and the stragglers will flip the IPv6 switch. With nobody on IPv4, it won't be a premium value-add anymore, and that era will be a distant memory of the past like BBSes are now.

Right now the IPv4 situation is not bad enough to make widespread IPv6 support critical to one's economic viability yet. Being able to see the animated turtle on kame.net isn't quite enough of an incentive, but the incentives will slowly shift.

(I see the same transition away from fossil fuels. Right now, an investment in alternative energies is pure speculation: it may pay off someday, but we don't know when that day is. When we've run out, though, the payoff will be clear: you will get infinite money the second you figure out some way to give humanity energy. This will encourage more investment than some nebulous LEED certification will. Tax credits are nice, but not as nice as cash.)

harshreality• 14 years ago

Comcast is only one ISP. AT&T hasn't yet deployed IPv6 for their residential customers. (I think there are ipv6rd routers available, but you have to know about them and configure your own router to use them, and since it's not an official service, it could be discontinued at any time).

Then there's software. Many web apps don't support IPv6 (db fields limited to ipv4 format, or code assuming ipv4 format). For instance, Internet Brands is too busy with important business, like frivolous lawsuits, to fully support IPv6 in vBulletin. [1]

Some webapps have 3rd party hacks (or even first party hacks) to "support" ipv6 without modifying a lot of ipv4-dependent code, typically by hashing the ipv6 address, taking 32 bits, and using that as the ipv4 address. It's both disgusting and funny.

There's a long way to go before IPv4 is dead.

[1] http://tracker.vbulletin.com/browse/VBIV-9397 (you need a vbulletin.com forum login, unfortunately, and maybe also a linked license; in summary, it's a 2-year-old bug for full support of IPv6, it has no comments from vbulletin devs and no assignee.)

InclinedPlane2• 14 years ago

Here's my "bold" (aka safe) prediction: IPv4 will still be the dominant network addressing system in use in 2025.

lucb1e2• 14 years ago

I find this funny. The IANA holds 15 IPv4 /8 blocks, even mentions "Reserved for future use" when whoissing, and nobody cares.

wmf9• 14 years ago

Not really. All the blocks that are marked "reserved" are more like "unusable"; e.g. real equipment cannot use class E. People have been over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-addr...

lucb1e2• 14 years ago

I know, but I still think it's stupid. Nevermind though, it's an endless opinionated discussion.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

There are lots of stories like this. Many of them are worse; at least you can imagine that the UK is holding these addresses in reserve. There are companies with giant allocations that are holding them so that they can give every desktop and every printer in their enterprise a routable address; others are doing the same thing, but also operating flat, unrouted networks.

More evidence for the core problem: fiat allocation doesn't work. If there was a functioning, liquid, accessible market for advertisable IP prefixes, you wouldn't have to convince anyone that a /8 was worth $1bn; it just would be.

bo10242• 14 years ago

...and, anyone who didn't have $1bn to spend would be SOL.

There's plenty of numbers to go around; the sooner we get to v6 and get around this mess, the better.

debacle• 14 years ago

If you need 16 million IP addresses, you probably have $1bn.

cynicalkane• 14 years ago

What the heck? If you want an /8 you're probably SOL anyway.

pash• 14 years ago

What an embarrassing failure of economic reasoning.

IPv4 addresses are a scare resource. Acknowledging that, and allowing them to be traded at a price that reflects their value, is the surest way to get them out of the hands of those who are wasting them in the way tptacek and the article describe and into the hands of those who will do something more productive with them. Pricing IPv4 addresses would hasten adoption of IPv6 by providing a financial incentive to switch from IPv4 to IPv6 to those who can do so most easily (i.e., cheaply).

In other words, if you want to "get around this mess", stop allocating scarce and valuable IPv4 addresses as if they have no value.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

The opposite is true. The current situation incentivizes entities with billion dollar budgets to hold address space forever, because there is no cost to them for doing so.

wmf9• 14 years ago

Realistically, anyone with an /8 to sell would probably break it up. There is some speculation that legacy holders are selling off their unused addresses slowly because a glut would reduce prices.

ChuckMcM3• 14 years ago

"fiat allocation doesn't work"

Sort of, and sort of not right? Fiat allocation of a fixed resource, sure, but ISO does fiat allocation of OID space and it works because folks are free to grow as much as they want below it. As I recall one of the original 'next gen' IP proposals was like a huge address translation cloud, IPs were encapsulated in yet another layer which provided 'context' for the IP address inside. Basically every entity got their own 32 bit address space and ingress/egress to the Internet resulted in encapsulation and some additional router magic. One of the arguments against was the huge additional bandwidth cost. Of course we didn't realize at the time that few protocol changes could waste as much bandwidth as SPAM does.

The other challenge is that a functioning liquid market for IP addresses would most likely lead to speculation in IP address blocks. Worse is buying an address block from someone in Germany so that packets have to go to Germany first (top level static routing) to the router where they are re-allocated and then to their 'real' destination router. All very inefficient.

I, like other folks at Sun, was a big fan of a more modest 64 bit address proposal for V6, but alas it was not to be. That the conversion has taken as long as it has (and still isn't "here" nearly enough for a lot of users) really illustrates the dangers of the argument to 'permanently' fix things[1]. But innumeracy aside, the confounding issue is that IP addresses are 'structural' like telephone numbers and managing mobility of structural identifiers is always challenging (the cellular market deals with this all the time) so creating a truly liquid marketplace for these identifiers would ideally include fixing the structural issues which would allow the constraints to be fixed and thus eliminate the market.

Bottom line, it would have been great if folks had thought of that first, but they didn't and while future protocol developers can (and should) benefit from that experience, we're stuck with V4 address blocks that are stuck in various regions of the world.

[1] The most persuasive argument against 64 bit addresses was that this would only push the problem down the road, whereas 128 bit addresses fixed things once and for all.

tptacek7• 14 years ago

If we're talking about advertisable blocks, the Germany scenario doesn't happen. For the time being, there can't be a liquid market for /32's, at least not one that works acros multiple ISPs.

I agree with you strongly that the 128 bit IP address is a huge design mistake, one that has unnecessarily retarded the deployment of IPv6 (I personally believe fatally so). Even in the '90s, a 64 bit number was still a scalar on most platforms you'd care about. And even in 2012, 128 bit numbers aren't. I think people drastically underestimate the amount of work it's going to take to upgrade the huge amount of software built on the assumption that you can store an IP address in a scalar.

lsc3• 14 years ago

>More evidence for the core problem: fiat allocation doesn't work. If there was a functioning, liquid, accessible market for advertisable IP prefixes, you wouldn't have to convince anyone that a /8 was worth $1bn; it just would be.

you are missing a big point. This isn't like real-estate. This is plumbing.

Go do a search on "routing table growth"

This is actually a much larger problem than IPv4 runout. I mean, it's a problem that is further out, but it is going to hit well within my expected lifetime, and it's going to be a dramatically more difficult problem to solve.

The thing is, every time you break up a larger block into a smaller block, every router on the internet needs an entry in their routing tables[1] Usually, in content-addressable memory; Expensive stuff.

The thing is, the size of the global routing table? it's growing faster than moore's law.[2] I mean, it's not a huge deal now; for the price of a new compact car, you can get a router that has enough content-addressable memory to handle full tables and two 10g uplinks with 48 1g downlinks. reasonable cost of entry, if you ask me, and if you use dram (good luck with line rate 10G. don't think about faster line-rate.) well, then the cost is trivial. The routing table is under 500,000 entries in IPv4, so it's a trivial amount of dram.

The problem is that if this continues? (and all indications are that it's going to /massively accelerate/ if IPv6 catches on. At a minimum, you're gonna see the same number of ipv6 routes as ipv4 routes... and because IPv6 addresses are larger, ipv6 routes are larger) those routers are going to get more and more expensive.

So yeah, really? we need a way of charging, not for each IP, but for each announced route. Of course, that comes down hard on the little guys, whereas a per-IP charge is much more progressive. (a /8 takes up as many routing table entries as a /24.)

Getting by with a reduced number of IPs would be way easier for me than getting by without announcing my own block. Without BGP announcing my own block, my ISP has my balls in a vice. If they go down? I go down. More importantly, I need to change IPs when I switch to a new ISP.

I know what this is like, because I started out on my ISPs IP addresses, like almost everyone does. My provider found out that it's hard for me to switch off those IPs, so now I'm paying them, in total, for all the services they provide me, about twice market rate.

(It's actually really interesting, watching the dynamics of this problem play out on PPML or the like. Small players, like me, want to keep it easy to announce smaller blocks. We are fucked if you can only announce large blocks. Large players want tight restrictions on what size of a block you can announce, because they have the address space and they would rather not pay for more super-expensive CAM every time a Luke Crawford gets it in his head to start an ISP.)

[1] This is not strictly true. "every router that matters" would be closer to the truth. If you don't have full tables from multiple upstreams, well, you will be effected by rather more partial outages than if you do.

[2]http://bgp.potaroo.net/

[3]http://bgp.potaroo.net/index-bgp.html

jnw22• 14 years ago

A Xeon E3-1220 has an 8MB L3 cache and costs about $210. If you deaggregate the entire IPv4 routing table to /24s to support fast lookups and store one nibble of destination data per route (probably just a destination interface number, if you can live with only 15 or 16 possible destinations, but you probably don't have that many upstreams), doesn't that mean that the entire routing table can fit in the L3 cache on the CPU (with a bit of the L3 not used by class E space, which will leave a bit of space for code, assuming you aren't doing anything but routing on this CPU)?

Now, it's quite possible that the Linux kernel's routing isn't dimensioned to provide this sort of performance, but if you want to avoid CAM in the IPv4 world, I don't see why you'd really need CAM...

(Also, I haven't looked carefully at how the L3 cache actually works on the E3s to make sure that it's shared between code and data, etc etc etc. Also, if you're actually implementing this, you presumably do want to include class E in the table, and then hope/assume that when class E doesn't get used, the CPU will be smart enough to cache the code instead.)

cbs3• 14 years ago

We need to quit looking back at the v4 space like this, bite the bullet and deploy v6. It's already in use on some networks, and inevitable on 95+% of the rest.

The amount of time spent bike-shedding "well, v4 isn't running out as fast as they say it is" or "NAT will save us" (lol, no) that time is better spent deploying v6. For many installations, its actually not that big of a deal to do.

sjwright2• 14 years ago

And we will move, but it's not going to happen until 98% of the world's networking infrastructure (both public and private) is IP6 ready, which probably won't be for another decade.

cbs3• 14 years ago

That's the thing though. If everyone is waiting on everyone else, nothing gets done.

If your network doesn't already support v6, you're the person everyone is waiting on! You don't need to wait for your upstream provider to supply you with v6, tunnels are super easy to get.

The only exception to tunneling is if you're hosting a public-facing service, don't have v6 connectivity and don't trust existing tunnel providers. In this case: First, why are you at you're current host or colo center? They're probably shit. Second, set up a box at a provider with good connectivity to run the tunnel yourself. This is basically what we already do when we want to use our public v4 space but the ISP doesn't want to let us talk BGP.

eddanger• 14 years ago

51.0.0.0/8 the secret IP block otherwise known as Block 51.

7952• 14 years ago

Can IP blocks actually be sold?

drucken• 14 years ago

Yes. Privately and normally as part of bankruptcy proceedings. The most famous recent example is probably Microsoft's purchase of Nortel's addresses, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12859585

gioele• 14 years ago

Not generally, say ARIN an RIPE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion#Markets...

IP blocks are "licensed", not sold. These licenses can be transferred, but only under certain strict conditions.

The ARIN CEO stated [1]

«As you may be aware, ARIN is the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) responsible for Internet number resource management for Canada, United States, and parts of the Caribbean. In keeping with the policies developed by the community in this region, there are two possible ways to transfer IPv4 number resources to another party (via merger & acquisition transfer or via specified transfer), and these are detailed in section 8 of the Number Resource Policy Manual on the ARIN website at <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html>;

It is important to note that transfer of number resources via either method must be to another party that can demonstrate corresponding need. ARIN's registration services department can assist with this determination in advance or at the time of transfer. ARIN reiterates the importance of veracity in transfer requests and supporting documentation as fraudulent information can result in resource revocation.»

NRPM section 8 [2] says

«Number resources are nontransferable and are not assignable to any other organization unless ARIN has expressly and in writing approved a request for transfer.

…

It should be understood that number resources are not 'sold' under ARIN administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an organization for its exclusive use for the purpose stated in the request, …»

Older blocks allocated directly from IANA have different conditions attached to them that may render the transfer of the these licenses simpler or harder.

[1] http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-August/038888....

[2] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight

infinitivium• 14 years ago

what if IP addresses were allocated / confirmed by a bitcoin-like network?

izx• 14 years ago

you mean namecoin?

http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2011/05/12/namecoin-a-dns-alter...

TheGateKeeper2• 14 years ago

You mean completely unstable and essentially useless? No thanks.

dfox2• 14 years ago

Every router would then need several gigabytes of memory for routing tables.

fpp• 14 years ago

When looking into unused IPv4 /8 blocks besides private companies, could somebody please explain how much of the 201,326,592 addresses (12x /8) allocated to the US DoD have ever been used

wmf9• 14 years ago

They'll never tell you and it doesn't matter since they'll never give those addresses up.

Zenst2• 14 years ago

How many mobile phones made per day that support some form of internet access and how many of those use IPV6?

Scary thought is it not!

The first real opertunity to move to IPV6 in any way would be mobile smartphones and there like and yet that is not happening. It realy is a case of the ISP's and mobile telco's that need to start initiating the IPV6 move and until they do nobody will be dragged into following.

Maybe if it was illegal to sell devices that don't at least support IPV6. But of a messy situation when you can buy devices made brand new that still dont offer IPV6 support, criminal realy.

Still when you look into the history of British railways and the better modern alternatives you can see how some legacy designs just carry on with there limitations of capacity oversight.

Another aspect is cunsumers have in many respects forgotten how to complain to a company and let there frustrations out on the internet in area's were the companys offering the services will completely fail to notice and allow you to complain and vent of without them even knowing or indeed having to care.

How many of you have asked there internet service provider if they support IPV6 or indeed what there plans are to offer it? Reason I ask is that I can bet it's lower than 1 in 100 or indeed 1 in 100,000. I can't even recall any one of my friends or anybody I know or have dealing with ever mentioning they had made such an enquiry. I know I have, please tell me I'm not alone at least.

wmf9• 14 years ago

Verizon and T-Mobile are running quite a bit of IPv6 but nobody noticed since it just works.

jwatte2• 14 years ago

This is why organizations should pay $1 per year for each IP address they own.

FuzzyDunlop• 14 years ago

The argument is that if our government disposed of this 'asset' now, they'd rake in almost £1bn.

IPv6 is still not mainstream, so this figure can reasonably increase over time with the increase in IPv4 scarcity.

Thus it stands to reason not to sell out just yet.

nerd_in_rage• 14 years ago

I have my own /24 routed to my basement. Back in the early/mid 90's could get their own provider independent block.

If I knew now what I knew then, I would've gone for a class B block. lol.

rightyeah• 14 years ago

How much does it cost to "produce" an /8? Nothing. In the "magical" world of the internet, you don't even need to build a network to use the addresses on. Nor do you need to prove that you actually have any sort of "rights" (as the legal kind) over the addresses. Because there is no one who can grant you such rights. Hate to spoil the magick trick, but no one owns the internet. The whole scheme works on cooperation of network admins and acquiescence of everyone else.

And the top post claims it would be worth $1BB. Keep dreaming.

The truth is that the value is not in addresses, the value is in the network, and those who own the infrastructure, but of course there is no single infrastructure for the internet because it's a network of networks, owned by various parties.

The telephone company can charge you for a telephone number. It owns the network that you're going to use it on. If it didn't own the network, you would not pay for the number. You are paying to use the network. The number is just a formality.

This same is not true for the internet and IP numbers. The RIR's don't own any networks. There isn't even a clear line to the source of their authority to "allocate" address space. Does the US Government own the internet? Good luck with that argument. RIR's charge fees to "allocate" addresses, an administrative job, but we have no idea how the fees are spent. Maybe to pay the CEO's generous salary? How much work is it to keep track of some numbers? Maybe we should ask IANA. The whole scheme works based on cooperation and acquiescence.

No organisation ever paid $1BB for an /8. They got theirs for "free" (inconsequential maintenance fees notwithstanding).

The UK has an entire IPv4 /8 that it isn't using

Related Stories