IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit

Thu Feb 21 23:55:31 UTC 2008

(apologies in advance for extending this thread here rather than on  
ppml -- will gladly take responses off-list, or move it over if  
responders would prefer to continue the discussion there)

On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Adrian Chadd" <adrian at creative.net.au>
>> As I ranted on #nanog last night; the v6 transition will happen  
>> when it
>> costs more to buy / maintain a v4 infrastructure (IP trading,  
>> quadruple
>> NAT, support overheads, v6 tunnel brokers, etc) then it is to migrate
>> infrastructure to v6.
>>
>> If people were sane (!), they'd have a method right now for an
>> enterprise to migrate 100% native IPv6 and interconnect to the v4
>> network via translation devices. None of this dual stack crap. It  
>> makes
>> the heads of IT security and technical managers spin.
>
> I agree, to a point.  My prediction is that when the handful of  
> mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4  
> addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption  
> in the ARIN region)...

I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public,  
authoritative evidence to support this claim?
If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the  
product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.),  
changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two,  
or something else altogether?

Thanks,

TV