[arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Thu Sep 6 08:59:42 EDT 2012

Like Mike, I find it extraordinary that MSFT would devote 98% of its purchased numbers to these non publicly-routed uses. Maybe 10%, maybe even 20%, but virtually all of them? Strains plausibility. Incidentally, speaking of hosting companies, we found that Amazon immediately put into public routing all the address space they acquired from Merck, and so did all the other hosting companies, in both ARIN and APNIC regions, that we studied. So the MSFT case stands out. I understand why John has to say what he says, of course. 

Another interesting question: if they were really internal, non public uses, could they not be put on IPv6? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>  wrote:
> > There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!
> Not if you don't want horrible conflicts when you acquire or merge in
> any other organization.
> > Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000
> addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be
> unrouted?
> Speak with nearly any hosting organization, particularly given today's
> unique IP address needs for virtual servers.
> FYI,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list