Some Effects Of The Exhaustion Of IPv4 Addresses

What is the transition to IPv6? It is not a migration as erroneously indicated on many occasions, but both protocols, IPV4 and IPV6, will exist for some time, that is, there is a coexistence.

Taking into account that the Internet is fully implemented by the IPV4 protocol, and that its use is very frequent and important throughout the world, its immediate replacement would not be possible, that is, it is not possible to turn off the Network, not even by a couple of minutes to transition to IPV6.

It is not enough to update part of the equipment, it is a process that would have to involve any organization, be it a company, public administration or access or content provider in a synchronized way, which is impossible.

Precisely for this reason, the organization in charge of the standardization of Internet protocols (IETF, Internet Engineering Task Force), designed, together with IPV6 itself, a series of mechanisms that we call transition and coexistence.

It is important to understand what this implies. It is like a scale, in which today the side with the greatest weight represents IPV4 traffic, but little by little, thanks to this coexistence, as more content and services are available with IPV6, the weight shifts to the other side until that IPV6 is predominant. This is what we call the transition.

The design of the IPV6 protocol gives preference to IPV6 over IPV4, if both are available (IPV4 and IPV6). Hence, this weight shift occurs in “our balance”, naturally, based on multiple factors, and without being able to determine for how long IPV4 will continue to exist on the Internet and in what proportions. We can possibly think, trying to look into the crystal ball, that IPV6 will become predominant in 3-4 years, and in that same time environment, IPV4 will disappear from the Internet, at least in many parts of it.

It is important to remember that on February 3, 2011 IPV4 addresses were exhausted in the central registry of IANA (Internet Number Assignment Authority), so Internet service providers are accelerating the deployment of IPV6 in their networks to that both new and existing users continue to enjoy regular and continuous use of the Internet.

In view of the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses, the preparation of networks for the new version of the Internet protocol, IPv6, is inevitable. But the pace of this change also reflects the lack of rapport between the different actors who need to prepare, which has resulted in the use of skirmishes in the addressing system.

In some countries, the patch adopted is known as NAT, an acronym for ‘Network Address Translation’ – or, more recently, CGNs, or carrier-grade NATs, which are basically NATs on a larger scale. Basically, a sharing maneuver that allows the simultaneous use of the same IP address by different connections.

CGN type equipment is perhaps necessary for the transition phase, because part of the Internet is still in IPv4, part in IPv6, part in IPv4 and IPv6 and they need to talk. Only it is expensive. To reduce this investment, the content providers should place on IPv6.

The telecom operators, the main connection providers, maintain that they reluctantly use NAT. There is a risk of accessibility, latency increases, and there is, of course, the cost. They didn’t want to put it on. They thought that the best way out would be to use numbering resources from where they are left, but this has not progressed.

The idea was to “rent” blocks of IP addresses from Africa, the only region on the planet where they are still available. To this end, for example in Latin America, an agreement with Lacnic was attempted, but the issue failed to advance in the regional registration of the addressing system for Latin America and the Caribbean, which would be responsible for mediating the deal with Afrinic, its equivalent for African countries.

For operators, the measure would give breath to IPv4 as long as the ecosystem was not fully prepared for IPv6. The argument here is that telecommunications networks will be ready – or well forwarded – soon. But the same may not be true for users’ environments and part of the applications on the world network. The first attempt will be unshared IPv4 connections. And even with the use of NAT, the commitment is to keep sharing at the lowest possible rate – preferably at 2 to 1, but this will depend on the strategy of each company.

For IPv4 address owners, they can monetize their unused IPv4 addresses on marketplaces. However, not all marketplaces are worth using. Some actually increase the risk of IPv4 addresses getting blocklisted. IPXO, as an IPv4 addresses monetization platform, will provide soon a very secure marketplace for every owner and user. They will be able to simply lease or even monetize IPv4 addresses. 

There are two main interests served by the upcoming IPXO platform:

1. IP lease

As a tenant you will be able to choose whichever IPv4 address you want. You can also reserve the IP space you really need, not too much. Directing addresses to any network you use will also be easier. 

2. IP monetization

As an owner of IPv4 addresses you no longer use, you can find your buyers more easily. The sales process and distribution of sales proceeds will be transparent. Not only that, you can also choose where the sales proceeds will be transferred; to your PayPal account or to your bank account. 

With a promised transparent revenue flow, IPXO has managed to attract many IPv4 address owners to make healthy money without having to get involved in the illegal IP address market and without having to incur more risks for getting blocklisted. If you’re interested, you can subscribe IPXO to received the latest news about its launching.

In the end, the migration from IPv4 to IPv6 resulted in some fundamental changes, as well as adaptations to take advantage of even the smallest opportunity to make money.

(Visited 231 times, 1 visits today)