The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10)

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 29 December 2016 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50B91295BA for <>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.89
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=jveHZ4js; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=JaljC1Q+
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wT9FcthLMxS for <>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156F61294D6 for <>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBTAk4u9006082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:46:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1483008372; x=1483094772; bh=kmZIuZIE0AsrdTGrwX+Pv+lcbKnpRhXC+c4E+vZD32A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=jveHZ4js8hANHQzYOYRM7edBywQkSDPKJ50abTrVCOs+U0hNPb4XJzoLynX+ZEKHI lWKD5h4Isv2Lp+m0AA+saaiqIIqT1chQlI3072wJgwvtVvbivs3mD5Tiqd/wyftxQK s1ZKPPYJExS8zZOhcRrDnQpfWS/yv4NYcCeKT8oQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1483008372; x=1483094772;; bh=kmZIuZIE0AsrdTGrwX+Pv+lcbKnpRhXC+c4E+vZD32A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=JaljC1Q+DjBiWsHXrStOUU/zKzdlSPiJWkatKLQbJG81S0xVbX7Xymwp/mPCbuz3a MNJxuca2yI6RiIZ6rXA5uaYZjvFij5lQ8RAqmHsI0mXLax6Lgpb9bGh/4bBi2l71nx Z36dxcQIW22pCk8bAlqUZ9QGfaqmFh2TznZXSiYs=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:43:18 -0800
To: David Conrad <>, Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <049f01d2613f$c5431ef0$4fc95cd0$> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:46:21 -0000

Hi David, Patrik,
At 20:27 28-12-2016, David Conrad wrote:
>Do you have some magic wand that can make that 
>happen?  It would seem the opposite is happening 
>-- the price for IPv4 addresses is climbing, 
>with rumors of some folks trying to corner the 
>market. This is, of course, unsurprising given 
>Economics 101 and the laws of supply and demand. 
>Should make for interesting times ahead for 
>those organizations that continue to demand IPv4 addresses.

There are interesting time ahead for anyone interested in the topic.

>My suspicion (hope?) is that the increased price 
>of IPv4 (and operational challenges dealing with 
>GGNAT) will encourage folks to take IPv6 more seriously.

The opportunity to take IPv6 seriously was not 
taken seriously.  I doubt that moving to IPv6 
will be about technical challenges.

At 23:17 28-12-2016, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> combination with the increased a. 
>announcements of unannounced (regardless of 
>whether it is allocated or not) address space; 
>and ultimately b. announcements of address space 
>that is announced (as people will just not care 
>if someone on the other side of the planet use the space or not).

The thread at may be informative.

S. Moonesamy