Scarcity in IP addresses: IPv4 Address Transfer Markets and the Regional Internet Address Registries

We are running out of Internet addresses. This paper evaluates address transfer policies that Internet governance agencies are considering as a response to the depletion of the IPv4 address space. The paper focuses on proposals to allow organizations holding IPv4 addresses to sell address blocks to other organizations willing to buy them. This paper analyzes the economics of the proposed transfer policies, and conducts a systematic comparison of the policies proposed in the three main world Internet regions

Development of a Graduate Course on the Transition to Internet Protocol Version 6

Internet and mobile connectivity has grown tremendously in the last few decades, creating an ever increasing demand for Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. The pool of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) addresses, once assumed to be more than sufficient for every person on this planet, has reached its final stages of depletion. With The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority’s (IANA) global pools depleted, and four of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIR) pools down to the their last /8 block, the remaining addresses will not last very long. In order to ensure continuous growth of the internet in the foreseeable future, we would need a newer internet protocol, with a much larger address space. Specifically, with that goal in mind the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was designed about two decades ago. Over the years it has matured, and has proven that it could eventually replace the existing IPv4. This thesis presents the development a graduate level course on the transition to IPv6. The course makes an attempt at understanding how the new IPv6 protocol is different than the currently used IPv4 protocol. And also tries to emphasize on the options existing to facilitate a smooth transition of production networks from IPv4 to IPv6

Some reflections on IPv6 adoption in Australia

IPv6 is an inevitable upgrade to Internet Protocol (IP), the underlying protocol uponwhich the Internet is based, and solves many problems with the existing technologyincluding limited address space, performance and security. Although IPv6 has beensupported by products from major vendors for many years, adoption has beenpractically non-existent. Meanwhile, the Internet continues to grow and the size ofthe problem increases.This unsatisfactory situation is a consequence of network externalities in whichrational individuals have no motivation to be the “first-mover†. We argue thatgovernment action is required to promote diffusion of IPv6, but note that this isdifficult and may be unlikely in the absence of a business case. Making the case forIPv6 should not be problematic given the range of “hidden†costs of retaining thestatus quo; however, there has been no systematic effort to assess such costs. We thusrecommend a number of directions for future research to address this deficienc

Two economic perspectives on the IPv6 transition

Purpose – IPv6 is the replacement for the Internet’s incumbent protocol, IPv4. IPv6 adoption is required to allow the Internet to continue to grow; however, there has been almost no uptake since its standardisation in the late 1990s. This paper seeks to explain how this non-adoption may be a consequence of current policies paradoxically intended to promote IPv6. Design/methodology/approach – Economic theories of exhaustible resources and permit markets are used to provide an explanation for the lack of adoption of IPv6. Findings – The current policy approach will not yield a significant adoption of IPv6 until after the IPv4 address space is exhausted and may also constrain Internet growth after IPv4 exhaustion occurs. Practical implications – Current policies intended to promote IPv6 diffusion through the Internet must be reconsidered. The economics of permit markets in particular can inform discussions about IPv4 address transfer markets. Originality/value – Economic analyses of IPv6 adoption are almost non-existent and very few prior studies are known. This paper helps to rectify this important gap in the literature

New perspectives on the IPv6 transition

Despite it being more than a decade old, and nearly two decades since the problems with IPv4 were first identified, IPv6 still has not diffused significantly through the Internet. Policies advocating market forces to promote IPv6 diffusion are widespread, and thus this paper examines IPv6 adoption from the perspectives of Hotelling's aconomics of exhaustible resources and the economics of permit markets, concluding in both cases that significant IPv6 diffusion will not occur until after the IPv4 address space is exhausted. This outcome is not desirable, and therefore new policy alternatives must be debated

Determining Ownership and Control of IPv4 Addresses

The creation of the Internet ushered in an era of unprecedented legal challenges as jurists and legislators struggled to keep up with rapidly evolving technology.1 Chief among these issues is whether certain types of intangible data, specifically Internet Protocol addresses2 (IP addresses), can be owned and treated as intangible property. The world has nearly exhausted its supply of unique IPv4 addresses and the property rights of individuals utilizing IPv4 addresses are poorly defined. This area of law has not been subject to robust examination by the US court system. A few recent bankruptcy cases have tangentially reached the issue of whether IP addresses may be owned by private corporations instead of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) that administer and maintain the vast amounts of IP numbers.3 The apparent tension is between those RIRs that wish to maintain their exclusive property rights in all IP addresses, and large companies, universities, and other institutions that were assigned IP addresses with very few, if any, contractual limitations and wish to exercise their own property rights in these IP addresses. This Note will seek to explore the modern issues associated with IP address ownership, evaluate the relative merit of all stakeholders’ property claims vis-à-vis IP addresses, and recommend possible solutions from other areas of property law, while keeping one eye on future developments and market continuity. This Note will begin by recounting a concise history of the development of IP addresses, taking time to specifically flag changes in concepts of address ownership and providing basic information on subjects such as RIRs, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Part I will outline the differences between legacy and non-legacy IP addresses, while noting how those differences potentially affect the property rights bound up in the respective categories. Part I will also explore how different stakeholders view property rights in IP addresses. IPv4 address administration is currently organized as a multi-stakeholder model, and as such, this Note is organized by the views of each major stakeholder in IPv4 technology: the American Registry for Internet Numbers’ (ARIN) view, the US Government’s view, and the free market view. Part II will discuss the major cases that have shaped the current state of property rights in IP addresses and similar devices such as domain names. Part III will compare the views of the major stakeholders in IP addresses. Part IV will survey the major theories of property law that underlie the current views on IP address property rights. It will explore how different social values—such as transparency, openness, and fairness—impact whether property rights ought to be recognized in IPv4 addresses. Finally, part V will identify and evaluate potential solutions to this complex legal issue. The most likely of the solutions is a judicial recognition of the existing extra-judicial status quo struck between ARIN and IPv4 address traders