...or the opposite: large cloud providers own a lot of valuable IPv4 space. They might want to increase the value of their investment.
Encouraging switching to pure-IPv6 connectivity would be a big loss for them.
This includes AWS, btw. You effectively get a public IPv4 with your instance, regardless of your actual needs. It actually increases your costs to get cloud instances that don't do that.
That is still a problem for sure, but I thinking of places doing things like giving a printer its own subnet just because they have no incentive to be efficient.
Found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75h4gm7t1oI
I just installed a new FTTH ISP at home and learned the hard way what CG-NAT is, after years of having my own public IP with my previous ISP.
I pay about $180/month for a “business internet” cable line. 300 megabits down, 25 up. I also “know a guy” at the ISP who made sure the routing wasn’t going to be an issue.
This is super interesting! I didn't know this was even possible before I started looking into it.
[1]https://superuser.com/questions/323801/how-can-i-own-an-ip-a...
There are also cloud providers, like Vultr, that will allow you to do BGP with them. You could then get a network block routed to a VPS, then tunnel it out or whatever.
With a routeable IP on every computer, no one would be a second class (consume-only) user of the Internet.
So practically a globally addressable IP or not makes no impact on ability to be routable publicly
I maybe biased, I grew up in the 90's so I dont' really know how it was before, I do hear people reminisce about days before eternal September and bb groups and the good old 80's so perhaps it is always been a downward gradient as more and more people came online.
How are those two things related?
1. There are a ton of owners sitting on inefficiently used IP space.
Any company (not doing cloud hosting or network transit) that's holding a /8 is almost certainly using it very inefficiently, but an owner like Apple will never feel financial pressure to optimize or sell their /8. However, an owner like the university I went to (with a /16 network currently worth $3 million) will eventually face internal pressure to sell that network when the value rises to say $50 million.
As another example, Yahoo is currently announcing subnets containing 4.3 million IPv4 addresses, which is worth $193.5mm at auction. If the price of IPv4 addresses increased by say 10x, their IPv4 space would probably comprise the bulk of the company's value.
2. Owners will need to adopt IPv6 in order to realize these financial gains.
In order to sell a significant portion of their IPv4 space, an owner will have to compact their IPv4 usage into a much smaller space and migrate everything else to IPv6. This will be a huge undertaking for a lot of these places, but at some point it's worth it. By doing that, IPv6 adoption increases.
There is the potential for a feedback loop to be created where demand for IPv4 drops and the prices decline and so fewer conversions are done, but I tend to believe that IPv4 pricing will remain inelastic.
So basically the invisible hand of the market may guide us to IPv6, but I highly highly doubt we will have seen the last of IPv4 even decades from now.