Debate over decentralising global IP address registration

Debate over decentralising global IP address registration is profiled by BTW Media because published evidence links it to internet infrastructure, governance, operational dependencies, or market visibility.

• Proposal argues that decentralising IP address registration using distributed ledger technology could improve resilience and reduce centralised control
• Skeptics question potential regulatory, governance and operational challenges, especially given the existing role of Regional Internet Registries

“Today, the Internet’s most fundamental layer—IP address registration—remains centralised in the hands of five private Regional Internet Registries.”

——Lu Heng, CEO at Cloud Innovation, CEO at LARUS Ltd, Founder of LARUS Foundation.

Proposal for a new IP registry model

A detailed analysis by Lu Heng suggests that the current global system for registering Internet Protocol (IP) addresses is overly centralised and vulnerable to jurisdictional and governance risks. Under the existing regime, IP address allocation and registration is managed by five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), each responsible for a part of the world and coordinated by bodies such as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). 

The RIRs operate within national legal frameworks and maintain databases listing which organisations hold which address blocks. Critics have noted that reliance on these organisations can introduce inefficiencies and risk because each registry holds significant authority over critical Internet number resources. 

Heng’s proposal is to rethink this architecture using distributed ledger technology (DLT). A distributed ledger is a database kept across multiple computers in a peer-to-peer network, without a single controlling entity, and each entry is cryptographically verifiable. In this model, uniqueness of IP addresses — the fundamental requirement that each address be globally distinct — would be enforced algorithmically rather than by a small set of institutions. 

Supporters of such concepts argue they could automate many administrative processes that currently require manual review, theoretically enabling faster updates and reducing dependence on centralised bodies. Some research literature also explores related ideas, such as blockchain experiments to manage Internet resources or validate address assignments. 

Despite these proposals, there is limited real-world deployment of distributed ledger models for critical IP infrastructure. Conceptual work such as BGPcoin shows how blockchain could be used to register and manage address and autonomous system numbers, but these remain experimental. 

Also Read: Data sovereignty’s practical reality: Why law matters more than localisation
Also Read: Breaking the centralised choke point: Why IP addresses must be decentralised

Questions and implications for Internet governance

The discussion matters because IP addresses are integral to Internet operations. Under the current system, the five RIRsensure there is no conflict in who controls which IP blocks and handle allocation to local registries and network operators. Centralised coordination has enabled the Internet to grow to billions of connected devices. However, it also means the system depends on institutional stability and consistent policy frameworks across jurisdictions. 

Transitioning to a distributed ledger raises several important questions. One is regulatory compliance. Existing registries operate within legal frameworks in their regions, so replacing them with a technology-centric registry would necessitate new international agreements or regulatory adaptations. There is little clarity on how such a system would handle disputes, enforce policies or integrate with national laws.

Another concern is governance and accountability. Distributed ledgers can remove central points of control, but they do not eliminate the need for oversight. Decisions about address allocations and conflicts would still need mechanisms for resolution, and it is unclear how these would work in a decentralised context. Additionally, while automation might improve efficiency, it can introduce new technical and operational complexities that have yet to be tested at global scale. 

The proposal also invites debate about whether decentralisation is always beneficial for Internet infrastructure. The current system has been designed and refined over decades to balance global uniqueness, regional policy needs and technological stability. Any alternative must demonstrate not only technical feasibility but also robust governance and legal interoperability.