Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Markets For IPv4 Addresses Emerging

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the former-owner-only-pinged-it-on-sundays dept.

Networking 157

netbuzz writes "An active marketplace for buying and selling IPv4 addresses is materializing, and policymakers are clarifying the rules associated with how network operators can monetize this increasingly scarce resource. At least four websites are serving as brokers for organizations that want to sell or lease IPv4 address space. The activity comes in the wake of Nortel's recent sale of 666,624 IPv4 addresses to Microsoft for $7.5 million, or $11.25 per address."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for sale (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935484)

I'll give you a good price too!

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935506)

If everything had been followed according-to-plan, IPv4 addresses would be essentially worthless right now. Given that they aren't, I guess we failed in following that plan.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

matazar (1104563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935590)

Yeah, but as the article says, this may help get businesses to move on to IPv6 quicker.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935694)

The only thing that hasn't gone according to plan is that, apparently, Microsoft doesn't understand that routers that grok IPv6 are a lot cheaper than $11 per addressable address...

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935820)

When I'm on IPv4 and you're on IPv6, whose do you think will get blamed for it being broken? Oh, yours because I can access 99% of the Internet just fine, just not you. Everybody who wants a server or just have their Internet work "normally" will want an IPv4 address.

Sure, eventually IPv6 will work all that shit out. But mostly people would rather pay a few bucks and make it somebody else's problem. You try it, switch an ISP's customers to IPv6 and watch the wires glow as people go nuts because their silly little app from 1997 doesn't support IPv6 addresses. I dare you and your $11/ip router to do it.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35936494)

German Telekom will enable IPv6 for all their 12 million broadband customers by the end of this year.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936652)

Dual stack, they will all still use an IPv4 address. If all ISPs had done this years ago and we had slowly phased out IPv4 in favor of IPv6 this would have worked. Now it will do nothing to lessen the blow of the brick wall we're running into.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937138)

Enabling IPv6 is very different from switching customers to IPv6.

Enabling IPv6 while leaving v4 active won't piss anyone off and is the right thing to do but it won't solve the v4 exhaustion problem in the short term. However Introducing v6 only nodes (that is "switching" users to IPv6) isn't really practical until pretty much everyone else has moved to dual stack and that just isn't going to happen in the short term (i'd say years at best). Therefore the v4 exhaustion problem will have to be addessed in some other way be it ISP level v4 NAT or some form of protocol translation*. Providers who have no end lusers to force behind ISP level NAT will have to buy their IP addresses on the market.

* Personally I think protocol translation generally creates more problems than it solves though it may be worth deploying for a few legacy systems in a post transition world.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937524)

I may not be understanding this correctly, but isn't this the kind of problem that NAT64 can solve? If IPv6 home users are NAT'd for their access to the IPv4 world (by their routers doing translation initially, then I guess later on the ISP level) surely the transition could work smoothly? Home users retain close to equivalent functionality, and use IPv6 as more IPv6 becomes available and we start building up the critical mass needed to make the switch happen.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937614)

My understanding is that protocol translation (nat64 and nat46) is more trouble than it's worth in the short to medium term (in the long term I see it as a valid method for supporting legacy systems on an internet that is 99% v6 should we ever reach that state).

Nat64 can allow v6 only clients to access v4 only resources. Essentially it can be considered as an alternative to running v6 in paralell with natted v4. It means end systems are forced to support v6 to get any internet access at all* and requires mangling DNS**.

Nat46 can allow v4 only end systems to reach v6 only end systems but it's even messier than nat64 since it requires shared state between the nat46 system and the associated DNS mangler.

* which may be a pro for the internet in general but is certainly a con for the customers of the implementing ISP who will likely be forced to replace equipment
** which I regard as a bad thing

Re:silly little app from 1997 doesn't support IPv6 (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937224)

Wait, is this that after-market for conversion like we saw for Y2K?

Also, forgive the poor phrasing, but can everyone in IPv6 see each other? Can we just ditch all that eHow and Experts Exchange junk all in one swoop? It's like a giant Reset Button for the Internet. "Everything that matters will migrate because the people that care will do it. 15 years of legacy will fall away."

Go Go Gadget Nevinyrral's Disk!

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935884)

maybe by buying them from nortel some shareholders or bond holders will recoup more 'losses' tax free? Who knows, MS may be envisioning a scenario where the IPv4 networks float around for certain legacy devices long after the rest of us are doing everything IPv6.

Or maybe they just figured having them trapped in limbo doing nothing was definitely bad, and doing something with them was worth 7 million dollars compared to them floating around bankruptcy court for another 3 years, and if they're wrong, it's only 7 million bucks, which on MS's scale is nothing.

Re:I've got a large number of IPv6 addresses for s (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937034)

BULLSHIT

The problem is that the v6 transition plan was/is to migrate from v4 only-->dual stack-->v6 only. The trouble is that when all the services and clients you connect to have v4 then there is little incentive to implement dual stack and while there are a significant number of v4 only nodes going v6 only is not a reasonable option for nodes that need to communicate with the rest of the world. Without any real motivation to migrate to dual stack we have reached a situation where the majority of nodes are still v4 only yet v4 addresses have run out in the apnic region and are perilously close to running out in the rest of the world. ISPs are finally starting to deploy dual stack but it's still likely to be years (if ever) before dual stack is available to all users and years more before most of those customers are equipped to actually use it.

Protocol translation has been considered but the general feeling seems to be that it causes more trouble than it solves and it seems unlikely it will ever be widely implemented. Translation to link v4 clients to v6 servers is especially problematic because of the need to tie the translation boxes to the dns servers.

ISPs that serve end users can recover IPs from those clients by pushing them behind ISP level NAT, ISPs that only deal with backbone and/or hosting will have to either give up on growth or buy their IPs on the market.

Given that MS is trying to get into cloud hosting buying a bunch of IPs now seems like a rather smart move.

Forget Gold and Oil! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935554)

My money's all in IPv4 addresses! Soon, OPEC will be pricing gold in iPV4 addresses and I'll be rich.

anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935566)

or 8.8.8.8?

or 88.8.88.8?

etc.

you could sell any one of those addresses in china or taiwan for millions each

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935582)

I think google runs a dns on 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 for that matter.

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935586)

i want to buy 127.0.0.1 for a price of multi-trillionaire national deflicitly d-d-d-d-d-dollllars!

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936182)

Well, I'm willing to sell it you for $100,000. I need the cash to get my money from some Nigerian prince ;)

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935592)

Google owns 8.8.8.8, it's one of their DNS servers.

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935598)

if you did a reverse ping you'd see google already owns 8.8.8.8, and if you're particularly intuitive, you'd see 8.8.8.8 could answer your reverse dns lookup for you.

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935608)

8.8.8.8 is an address for Google's public DNS server [google.com] .

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935656)

8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are both DNS servers that Google offers.

Routing prevents "market" from working (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935708)

It is not possible to sell individual addresses. Period. It is not possible to sell small allocations between networks either. You can't keep your /28 address space if you move. Minimum space is /24 and that has to be assigned by the registrar or you "buy it" from someone with the blessing of the registrar. Of course, they would not allow the IP address space to be fragmented as that would cause more problems than it solves.

This is akin to routing phone numbers. In the past, numbers were hardwired to specific access areas. This remains true for most part today. The exception is today you can route phone numbers via IP (ie. internet). This allows us to have a market for phone numbers.

Is this possible with IP addresses? Sure! We "just" need a larger, more flexible address space where IPv4 can be assigned to. We could even call it something like, I don't know, IPv6. Then when network transitions to this space, the old IPv4 could use inventions like tunneling and IPSec to route IPv4 addresses over IPv6 for legacy applications thereby allowing individual IPv4 address to be portable!

Re:Routing prevents "market" from working (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936224)

mod parent up

definitive

Re:Routing prevents "market" from working (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936474)

As phone networks changed from Strowger switches to digital and then to packet switching, the end lines remained the same - I can use an old phone with the modern network.

So, do whatever you want inside the network, as long as that network delivers an IPv4 packet to the intended destination so that I can still use an old device with your new network.

Re:anyone control 88.88.88.88 ? (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937656)

I want 42.42.42.42 for meself and 69.69.69.69 for ye olde pr0n site.

I've got 253 IPs to sell in 192.168.1.x (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935596)

I've got a bunch of IP addresses that my router hands out available because I'm not using them all. They range from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.254 so at $11.25 per address that'll be $2,846.25

Woot!

Re:I've got 253 IPs to sell in 192.168.1.x (0)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935686)

I could sell the entire 192.168.x.x domain. If it wasn't unroutable, therefore worthless on the inert net, that is...

Re:I've got 253 IPs to sell in 192.168.1.x (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935730)

I'll take 8!

Ohhh I'm becoming a crafty consumer!

Re:I've got 253 IPs to sell in 192.168.1.x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35936152)

I'll take 8!

Ohhh I'm becoming a crafty consumer!

That will be 8*7*6*5*4*3*2*11.25 = $453600.00

Re:I've got 253 IPs to sell in 192.168.1.x (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937632)

Why not sell 192.168.0.0/16?

or 10.0.0.0/8 for that matter. Much better payout than a measly /24.

Troubling for IPv6 adoption (4, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935672)

Now ISPs and core networks have another excuse not to transition to IPv6. It will destroy this "market". 2^32 addresses is now a feature, not a bug.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (1)

rritterson (588983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935710)

Right, until comcast runs out of addresses for customers and has to pay $1000 on the open market per address. No home user is going to pay $1000 to get connected when some other ISP has gone IPv6 and can connect them for $35.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (5, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935896)

Knowing the greedy telecom companies, they'll try and sucker us all into ISP-level NAT first. After all, NAT works fine if home users are good consumers, passively web-surfing and connecting to "content providers" for any server needs.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936824)

They'll wait until the internet goes to functioning so poorly for so many people, that they can demand a huge bailout from the gov't to fund the switch to IPv6.

It'll be "for the children".

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937332)

99.9+ percent of people couldn't even give you a reasonable definition of what a server is, never mind why they would want to run one.

You may have to pay more to get a publicly routable IP, but that's what happens when something gains value.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35937502)

What always dove me nuts about my school was that they used a firewall combined with unique ipv4 addresses which completely destroyed any usefulness of having a unique ipv4 address. They could have just as easily used NAT. The justification was to secure the network. What crap. They should have simply degraded the connection of infected systems if they were seriously overselling the line (they were).

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935910)

No home user is going to pay $1000 to get connected

A very small percentage of home users need a public IP.
Expect to see NAT implemented for home users very soon...

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935962)

That's the correct analysis. Some commenters act as if switching to IPv6 comes at no cost. That is always surprising to me, especially the engineering crowd here, which I would expect to be familiar with the notion of trade-offs.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936410)

Switching is not a zero cost solution, but at some point sticking with IPv4 won't be either.

The solution, whether you switch now or in the future is to have a road map which outlines the risks and the steps. One of the simplest approaches is simply to start with the intranet border, concentrating on stuff in the DMZ, such as public facing webservers and using a proxy server to allow systems on your IPv4 intranet to to access external IPv6 base web servers. You won't ever eliminate risk, so the best thing to do is to find out how to minimise it.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936302)

Comcast is already making steps towards IPv6: http://www.comcast6.net/ [comcast6.net] . The latest news entry on that site:

"Comcast and the Internet Society today announced that Comcast will participate in World IPv6 Day on June 8, 2011. We anticipate having our IPv6 trial users participate in this event, which will give them the opportunity to access many more sites natively over IPv6. In addition, we plan to have more of our websites available over IPv6."

It would be cool to have /. participate, even if they are hiding behind some ipv6/ipv4 proxy.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935886)

>>Now ISPs and core networks have another excuse not to transition to IPv6. It will destroy this "market". 2^32 addresses is now a feature, not a bug.

I bet MIT is kicking itself for turning over its class A back in the day. That'd be worth approximately eleventy jillion dollars these days, at current market value.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936550)

unfortunately that also means that some ISPs and big corporations have an excuse to maintain IPv4 - if they can make money selling their IP blocks or more likely buying them and then leasing them out.

This may seem like a reason to migrate away from IPv4, but some companies suddenly have a vested interest in keeping it around.

Re:Troubling for IPv6 adoption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35937182)

If utility regulations did not block competition, the moment the cost of buying ipv4 addresses exceeded that of providing more via ipv6 suddenly all the capital you could imagine would flood in to satisfy that demand and invest in the more efficient solution. Without peaceful alternative environments to compare to ours, it is hard to say for certain what that is.

It's official: IPv6 is for poor folk! (2)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935712)

I predict that IPv4-only access will become a sort of hallmark for services that prefer to cater to the relatively well-off.

TFA talks about an "incentive" for everyone to get on IPv6, but markets often have the opposite effect.

Re:It's official: IPv6 is for poor folk! (5, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937448)

Economics theory refers to what you're talking about as a Giffen Good [moneyterms.co.uk] . As prices rise, so does the appeal and therefore so does the demand. The usual laws regarding supply-and-demand, etc, don't work. Prices will rise to what the market will bear, but as prices rise the desirability ensures that the markets will always bear just that little bit more. Which is why you get market bubbles in the first place. The greater the overpricing, the greater the prestige in owning the commodity.

Ultimately, all bubbles burst and when the IPv4 market bubble burts it is going to cause a LOT of pain because none of those caught in the bubble will have bothered preparing for IPv6. They'll assume that there'll always be some way to extend the range, some way to inflate the bubble still further. We've all seen similar posts on Slashdot even, where people should be smarter than that,

This is most horrible (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935716)

...because this is the worst kind of lock in for ipv4: people who, now that the ipv4 landgrab is over, have the opportunity to monetize this artificial scarcity have precisely zero interest in switching to ipv6, because it makes no business sense. Just like all the good domain names were registered in 1997, greatly increasing the value for the early birds and the big corporations, all "good" ips are now allocated.

Now not only have new sites to come up with unsquatted, original, decent domain names on non-shady TLDs, now they even have to beg scammers for a public IP.

The internet just won't evolve itself into using ipv6. The 'hidden hand' will not give up this opportunity to turn a landgrab into a moneygrab.

I'm afraid government action -- yes, that thing you pay with taxes -- will be needed to shut this crap before it even begins and force the times of the ipv6 transitions over.

As if.

Re:This is most horrible (1)

badpazzword (991691) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935870)

Whoops, forgot to login. Please reply to this comment, instead of the parent.

Re:This is most horrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35936908)

Whoops, forgot to logout after logging in. Please reply to this comment, instead of the parent or GP.

Re:This is most horrible (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937556)

Businesses aren't necessarily stupid (that said, there are plenty of stupid people in the world for a few of them to be). Even if they were monetizing IPv4, you could bet your arse that it means they've given the problem enough thought to realize that they actually do need an IPv6 action-plan of some kind, ideally dual-stack, "ready to go" since if you think you can sell your IPv4 addresses then you also realize at some point they really will deplete.

Why does everything have to be monetized? (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935722)

Why does everything have to be monetized? Why can't ARIN just reclaim blocks that are not well utilized and reissue them? Does HP really need two /8 blocks?

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35936080)

Does HP really need two /8 blocks?

Yes.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

linatux (63153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936588)

Not for much longer, the way Itanic is going...

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (2)

edjs (1043612) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936104)

ARIN can probably do so for blocks assigned under their authority. However, the same is not true for blocks handed out pre-ARIN (1997), which applies to most all of the huge unused blocks. And the demand for addresses means it'd be a stop-gap measure at best.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936260)

Because that wouldn't solve anything, long term, even if it were feasible. An /8 is slightly more than what IANA was delegating every month. Reclaiming them would take longer than they'd last.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936554)

Isn't anything having to do with IPv4 a stopgap? The demand for IP's is outstripping the supply.

By supporting an IPv4 trade, companies are rewarded by hoarding addresses they didn't really need, and it just puts less pressure on the internet at large to make the inevitable jump to IPv6.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936986)

ISPs that convert to 100% Dual-Stack Lite [wikipedia.org] will be able to sell off most of their IPv4 addresses (though if they are among the last to convert they won't get much if anything for them).

Allowing addresses to be freely transferred (as freely as they can be within the constraints of routing, which isn't very) will permit the remaining addresses to be efficiently used. Far from encouraging hoarding, permitting them to be sold will encourage companies to transfer unneeded ones to someone who will use them.

If IPv4 addresses become a significant expense ISPs will be motivated to minimize their need for them. DS Lite is the best way to do that.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937488)

Isn't anything having to do with IPv4 a stopgap?

If we assume the UN medium projection holds for wold population then in 2040 (the peak of the UN medium population curve) there will still be arround 0.5 IP addresses per person. IMO that is a managable level with wide use of ISP level NAT.

By supporting an IPv4 trade, companies are rewarded by hoarding addresses they didn't really need

But they are also rewarded for recovering addresses that they could do without and making them available to those who are prepared to pay the most for them (which is at least roughly correlated to who needs them most).

The alternative is that IPs will still be recovered but rather than your provider of choice being able to buy the IPs they need with no strings attatched you will have to get your internet connections from whoever has the IPs you need.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (2)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936358)

Why does everything have to be monetized? Why can't ARIN just reclaim blocks that are not well utilized and reissue them? Does HP really need two /8 blocks?

Because I'm more comfortable with buyers and sellers coming to mutually-agreeable terms for the transfer rather than some centralized bureaucracy decided what constitutes "well-utilized" and seizing them against the consent of the owners. Besides the general dislike for top-down authority, the decentralized decision-making process will likely yield (overall) better results for determining what is "well-utilized" and what isn't based on the preferences of the stakeholders.

Money isn't the object of the game, it's just a convenient metric for keeping score -- in this case, the monetization of IP addresses is a reasonable (not perfect, but remember neither is ARIN -- we are choosing between two flawed solutions) way to determine whether or not a particular user needs or would part with it given the proper incentive. That is, it functions as a damn good way to do price discovery.

[ The astute will recognize that the initial distribution of IPs is patently absurd, largely, I would argue, because ARIN gave them out willy-nilly instead of charging $1/ea at the outset. To the extent that this damaged the prior allocation, I think ARIN should encourage (with incentives) technological measures to reclaim as much as possible funded out of current revenue. ]

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (5, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936802)

Because I'm more comfortable with buyers and sellers coming to mutually-agreeable terms for the transfer rather than some centralized bureaucracy decided what constitutes "well-utilized" and seizing them against the consent of the owners. Besides the general dislike for top-down authority, the decentralized decision-making process will likely yield (overall) better results for determining what is "well-utilized" and what isn't based on the preferences of the stakeholders.

Then you should run, not walk, away from your computer and never access the Internet ever again.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but oligarchic cliques of so-called 'scientists' and 'researchers' from ivory tower elitist academic institutions have been controlling your Internet since its inception. Not too long ago, one man (one man) was responsible for ccTLD management. The hubris!

It's because of this cabal of anti-market conspirators that the Internet is such a ramshackle digital hodge-podge driven by socialist ideologies that allow people access to anything - anything! - for free.

Happily, the Captains of Commerce are working even as we speak to save us from this intolerable freedom to share.

Don't like capitalism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35936362)

Go live in North Korea commie!

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936414)

Why does everything have to be monetized? Why can't ARIN just reclaim blocks that are not well utilized and reissue them? Does HP really need two /8 blocks?

Maybe ARIN can just reclaim blocks, that are not "well utilized", but you'll need to explain how you want it to work. Once you make a proposal, then ARIN can either accept it, or the community will have explained why the proposal cannot work.

If you want ARIN to reclaim blocks, subscribe to the policy mailing list ARIN-PPML and champion your policy proposal that will result in ARIN reclaiming blocks; follow the ARIN PDP to submit a formal proposal. Build consensus; if people on the mailing list agree with you, your proposal might become policy .

Be prepared to show up in person at an ARIN meeting to defend your proposal, explain, and justify, as required by the policy development process. You'll need to provide a proposal for exactly how the reclaiming process should work, what should be subject to reclamation, and address any major concerns.

If you can't even do that -- then the reason ARIN "can't" "just reclaim blocks", is that noone has provided a reasonable acceptable policy proposal that permits ARIN to accomplish it .

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

XXeR (447912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937140)

And honestly, why should they (ARIN) have the right? I'm sure HP considered their second /8 when they bought Digital (at least I think that's who they got it from)...why should they now be forced to give them away for free?

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937376)

And honestly, why should they (ARIN) have the right? I'm sure HP considered their second /8 when they bought Digital (at least I think that's who they got it from)...why should they now be forced to give them away for free?

It doesn't matter how they got it; the RIR the address space lives in should be raising the justified need question -- and if they're not utilizing it, it should be reclaimed. Even if HP had never bought DEC, this question could and should be raised with regards to the /8 and all /8 assignments that were issued before the internet migration to CIDR.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

renrutal (872592) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936596)

Yeah, ARIN should take all the unused blocks back, that would give us a lot of more time to complete the transition. Another two months should be enough, right? Right?

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936818)

Grandfathered in.

Blocks allocated before ARIN don't abide by ARIN rules. This is why Nortel is trying to sell its block. There are regular home users out there that own /24s. Back when they gave out /24s for free, you could have gotten one. If you got your /24 before ARIN, then you don't need to pay for a yearly fee and it's yours to do with what you want.

legacy blocks (5, Informative)

jcurran (307641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936868)

Incorrect. Blocks allocated prior to ARIN are still maintained in the ARIN database accordingly to community policies. This includes processing contract, updates, being reclaimed, etc.
/John
John Curran President and CEO
ARIN

Re:legacy blocks (2)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937832)

So a block was that grandfathered in loses its status once they try to change ownership?

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937266)

I agree with you. We totally should adopt communism for IPv4.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35937366)

Consider the economic price calculation problem for an answer. It shows the relation between price(monitization) and utility.

As for need, no. No one needs anything, in fact. We WANT, and nothing more or less. Those wants are all subjective, but the objective aggregate of all our wants is what price is all about.

Re:Why does everything have to be monetized? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937378)

Why can't ARIN just reclaim blocks that are not well utilized and reissue them?

Firstly as someone else has mentioned the huge blocks were issued before the RIR era so the RIRs' claims of jurisdiction over them are weak at best.

Secondly the internet works because the big ISPs respect the IANAs system for allocating IPs as authoritive. If some of the teir 1 ISPs (or even big lower tier ISPs) were to tell the IANA to fuck off and kept routing IPs to their old owners it could do REALLY nasty things to the internet.

Thirdly it wouldn't achive much, some ISPs would just make a land grab for them and we would be back to where we are now just a few months down the line. The fact is it's just not possible for everyone on the planet to have a public v4 addresses.

Why does everything have to be monetized?

Scarce resources have to be allocated somehow. In a capatalist society this allocation is usually handled through a market. As the cost of public v4 addresses goes up ISPs and their customers will have to re-evaluate what really needs a public v4 address and what can live without one.

routes (1)

brenddie (897982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935734)

Will router's routing tables grow too big from all this?

Re:routes (1)

doublebackslash (702979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935804)

Oh ye gods yes they will.

Re:routes (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936884)

Only very large blocks will be traded. This won't have much effect on either the routing tables or the shortage.

Nothing underscores a commitment to IPv6 (2)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935736)

like buying 100s of 1000s of IPv4 addresses. I'll sell them another 42 of them to bring them up to the 666,666 they were looking for.

Re:Nothing underscores a commitment to IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935846)

Now ain't that an interesting coincidence :P

Re:Nothing underscores a commitment to IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935860)

4 + 2 = 6, it's numerology bro

Willing to sell 8.67.53.09 (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935750)

Half price if your name is Jenny.

Re:Willing to sell 8.67.53.09 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935916)

And if my name is Anonymous?

Re:Willing to sell 8.67.53.09 (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936048)

I've got a nice jail cell for you in GITMO then.

Re:Willing to sell 8.67.53.09 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35936956)

ITYM 86.75.30.9

Re:Willing to sell 8.67.53.09 (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937064)

dang, Jenny, I said not to change that number.

Re:Willing to sell 8.67.53.09 (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937190)

LoL!! Mod +1 funny if I could... Might be a little old for most of /. though.

I bet someone at Interop is losing their job... (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935764)

I bet someone at Interop [slashdot.org] is losing their job over this one...

routes (1)

doublebackslash (702979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935776)

Here is how I see this going down:

Route counts are climbing fast
Moving IP blocks around from their nice chunky /8 homes will make it necessary to advertise subnets
AS numbers will not be issued to the fragmented blocks once the routing tables are a nice fat size and some older routers can't handle it (again, this type of thing has happened before) OR when they decide to just not hand out AS numbers for these fragmented blocks (to force the issue)
No AS number, no ability to route a subnet differently from the entire block. No resale value in an unrouteable block
Upgrades needed to handle the growing routing table AND/OR blocks are too large and unwieldy to be moved to where the customers need them
IPv6 wins by default because of the need to upgrade either way, even if it has to coexist for a long time

Kind of a high level view, and I don't know all the ins and outs of AS number assignment, but I think that strangling that resource would work nicely even if a few policies needed changing.

Re:routes (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936172)

It might not be ideal performance wise but some business will be willing to put with alot to get a little slice of the IPv4 pie. So you will see special virtual ISPs pop up that have a /16 or so and they will subnet it down to /29s put a bulky router with lots of memory behind it and have their customers tunnel to it, who could even be behind NAT from their physical ISP.

So don't worry even if the big boys stick to their guns and refuse to route anything smaller than a /24 IPv4 won't go away, nor with the market for addresses. My guess is the big boys will agree to route just about anything rather than give up the business.

Have /21 pre arin block for sale (1)

jayk75 (2072194) | more than 3 years ago | (#35935780)

May be upgradable to /20 as it was reserved if it is justifiable. I am the owner and original applicant. We can go over details. Contact me at jayk75 at hotmail dot com. This is a USA registered block, clean (no abuse, spam, illegal activity etc). A /24 was used for about a year in early 2000 but otherwise has remained unrouted. This block is not subject to any arin policies or regulations and no agreements have been signed or updated with arin.

Re:Have /21 pre arin block for sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35936090)

Wait, I can't tell. Is this guy serious or a joke?

Can you please phrase it as a nigerian scam?

Re:Have /21 pre arin block for sale (1)

jayk75 (2072194) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936208)

Ha. I'm serious. I'm in Washington state. Typing on a iPhone sucks.

Re:Have /21 pre arin block for sale (4, Informative)

jcurran (307641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936594)

If it''s registered in the ARIN service region, then its subject to policies developed by the community in this region for transfers. Go to www.arin.net and click on "Got IPv4 Addresses" for details.
Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

220 per employee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35935848)

Nortel has about 33k employees, why do they have so many addresses? Is there really a shortage or just many more stories like this?

New.net (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936046)

People pay for fake domain names through New.net, so I don't see why they wouldn't pay for IPv4 addresses.

As they say, there's a sucker born every minute.

A like this (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936108)

I can finally put my class C to use. Seriously, there's so much allocated by unused space that a free market is needed to make proper use of it.

Re:A like this (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937446)

Agreed. It's not like this was hard to see coming. The Internet has been a business engine for a couple of decades now. IPv4 addresses have value now that the rules of supply and demand are coming into play. If IPv6 didn't have significant issues, it would have been widely deployed by now. The chicken and egg questions of how pure IPv6 customers can interact with the IPv4 Internet, and whether or not billions of people will be easily convinced to replace their existing routers, creates a market for IPv4 address space.

Saw it coming (1)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936202)

I've been telling my friends this would happen for more than a couple of years. They've always laughed at me. The sad part is most of them work for ISPs and yet they never saw the bigger picture. They've always seemed to think it was in everybody's best interest to support v6. Well, it isn't. v4 connectivity _will_ become a privilege that only content providers and a few others will enjoy. It's the **AA's wet dream come true, it will be far easier to fight 'piracy'.

My prediction (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936438)

I predict that China will dictate IPv6 in the near rather than far future. That will make their addresses as few as they are for a country of that size available. In doing so China will meet its goals of building infrastructure that will work well into the future. Relatively speaking they don't have that much to convert unlike say 10 years from now. The money they make selling their IPv4 addresses will help pay for the migration and China will instantly be the big swinging dicks of IP6 and will own the market for manufacturing and supporting IPv6 network gear.

.

Some American company will spend $$$ to buy the block from China but for less than the price of of a migration to IPv6. They will meet their goals of keeping the share price up for the next quarter even if it means that they still have to spend the money some where down the road when some other sap of a CEO is in charge. The company will declare they are "winning".

Re:My prediction (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35937562)

Also the Great Internet Firewall.

China would see routing all of IPv4 through a government controlled NAT as a feature, not a problem.

First Market Valuation of the Internet (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35936490)

At $11.25 per address, that extrapolates to $40B ($48.3B minus private, multicast, and government addresses). Isn't that what Bill Gates is worth?.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?