Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IP Addresses Through 2025

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 158 posts

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#12

Post by blakesterz »

This closes on a bit of a downer:

  "As the Internet continues to evolve, it is no longer the technically innovative challenger pitted against venerable incumbents in the forms of the traditional industries of telephony, print newspapers, television entertainment and social interaction. The Internet is now the established norm. The days when the Internet was touted as a poster child of disruption in a deregulated space are long since over, and these days we appear to be increasingly looking further afield for a regulatory and governance framework that can challenge the increasing complacency of the very small number of massive digital incumbents. 

  It is unclear how successful we will be in this search for responses to this oppressive level of centrality in many aspects of the digital environment. We can but wait and see."

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#13

Post by Earendil137 »

butvacuum wrote: post #9
rendx wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this often that people refer to countries as actors. Are you implying that the government of these countries bought those resources and they're now owned by the government? Or are you saying that citizens/corporations of those countries are buying? I find it weird, I wouldn't use the phrase "The United States is buying XYZ" unless it was the current government doing so?

It seems to be widly accepted that the Chinese State (don't know about India) often imposes on or sponsers citizens to perform actions it finds adventagious. And, I'd say, the US is known to do this. I'll lead with 'Project Azorian' to back it up.

India does it too. You see it on all socials as well as reddit. Brain dead posts and comments praising the current govt or gate against anyone criticising.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#14

Post by Bluecobra »

petercooper wrote: post #3

Not to spoil the article (but there's a lot in there) but I was particularly intrigued by the ongoing tumbling of the price of IPs. After peaking in 2022, "these days the low price of $9 per address is back to the same price that was seen in 2014."

I was also surprised to find that out the other day when someone on Reddit was complaining they couldn’t get a good price on a /17 they were hoarding to sell for a profit. Good riddance.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#17

Post by Fiveplus »

The collapse in IPv4 transfer prices is what caught my eye here, dropping from a ~$55 peak in 2021 to a mean of $22 in early 2026 (figure 12).

This validates my hypothesis that the run-up in 2020–2022 was an artificial scarcity bubble driven largely by hyperscalers. AWS was right up there stockpiling before they shifted their pricing model. Once AWS introduced the hourly charge for public IPv4 addresses (effectively passing the scarcity cost to the consumer), their acquisition pressure vanished. The text notes Amazon stopped announcing almost 15M addresses in Nov 2025. I think they have moved from aggressive accumulation to inventory management.

We are seeing asset stranding in real-time. The market has realized that between the AWS tax and the efficacy of mobile CGNAT, the desperate thirst for public v4 space was not infinite. I'm curious to hear more takes on this.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#18

Post by assimpleaspossi »

Just yesterday--and I don't know how I wound up there--I looked at RFC1166 (from 1990) which is "a status report on the network numbers and autonomous system numbers used in the Internet community." There's a long list of companies and individuals who were assigned "internet numbers". To my surprise, my real name is listed there! I have no clue why.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#20

Post by graemep »

kincl wrote: post #11

The country code GB in some of the tables should show the source economy being Great Britain right? Am I misunderstanding the table?

That looks weird. I am guessing that someone knows about the mismatch between ccTLDs (where the UK is .uk) and ISO codes (where the UK is GB and Ukraine is UA) and tried to correct something and got it wrong.

its correct in other tables.

Post reply on HN