IP Addresses Through 2025

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Geopolitics and IP address ownership

  • Some claim large amounts of African IPv4 space are being bought and used for abusive activity (botting, large‑scale scraping), allegedly by actors in China and India.
  • There’s debate about whether “China/India is buying” means state action, state‑aligned companies, or private firms; several argue that in China (and to a lesser extent India) the line between state and private is thin.
  • Others stress attribution is hard; “country X” is often shorthand when we only know the geography, not the specific actor.

IPv4 price collapse and hyperscaler behavior

  • Multiple comments focus on the sharp drop in IPv4 transfer prices since a 2021–2022 peak.
  • Hypothesis: the earlier run‑up was a hyperscaler‑driven scarcity bubble (especially AWS), which ended once they introduced per‑IPv4 charges and improved IPv6 support.
  • Some see this as “asset stranding”: the market realized CGNAT and pricing changes capped real IPv4 demand.

CGNAT, IP reputation, and user experience

  • CGNAT is described as a major pressure‑release valve: tens of thousands of users per IPv4 address.
  • This breaks IP‑based reputation (one bad user can taint thousands), complicates spam/abuse filtering, and leads to frequent CAPTCHAs for end users.
  • A few hope worsening CGNAT pain will push IPv6; others note CGNAT hardware is costly and mobile operators already run IPv6‑first with translation.

IPv6 adoption: carrots vs sticks

  • Some want regulatory “sticks” (e.g., broadband definition requiring IPv6, forcing IPv4 downtime, or mandating IPv6 when selling CGNAT service).
  • Others argue IPv6 hasn’t been clearly “better” for most users and that trying to coerce adoption admits that; they favor making IPv6 genuinely more attractive instead.
  • There’s recognition that US government and some mobile operators push IPv6, but enterprise and smaller ISPs often lag.

NAT vs firewall; security and IoT

  • Long sub‑thread debates whether NAT “is a firewall.”
    • One side: NAT’s default behavior (no unsolicited inbound mapping) effectively protects home users and fails safe.
    • Other side: NAT only rewrites addresses; real protection comes from the router’s stateful firewall, which exists for both IPv4 and IPv6.
  • Concern from embedded/IoT perspectives: IPv6’s global addressing feels risky; NAT’s “accidental shield” is comforting.
  • Counter‑arguments note IPv6 firewalls can replicate “default deny,” and that NAT plus UPnP, STUN/TURN, and compromised devices give a false sense of security.

Operational experiences and IPv6‑only systems

  • Some report IPv6 rollouts breaking older devices (e.g., Apple TV stutter, old Macs crashing), prompting them to disable IPv6.
  • IPv6‑only or IPv6‑first deployments are cited: mobile networks, some government archives, the Matter smart‑home standard, and large internal corporate networks, typically with translation for IPv4‑only sites.
  • For startups, commenters recommend IPv6 internally with a dual‑stack edge; pure IPv6‑only is seen as unnecessarily limiting today.

Legacy space, speculation, and governance

  • Several note large pools of unused “legacy” IPv4 assignments held by defunct organizations, with no clear reclamation process; hoarding and leasing markets persist.
  • One commenter who speculated on a /23 found that running services on it is now more valuable than selling the space.
  • Some argue RIRs should be more aggressive in reclaiming unused space; others observe that smaller ISPs that got generous allocations decades ago are now aging out.

Centralization and regulation

  • The article’s pessimistic conclusion about an ossified, centralized internet resonates with some.
  • Others warn that heavy “regulatory and governance frameworks” might entrench incumbents further by raising barriers for newcomers.