Amazon Web Services

• IPv4 exhaustion forces telecoms and ISPs into infrastructure-sharing and leasing alliances.
• IP addresses now function as tradable digital capital—finite, scarce, and strategically concentrated.
• This analysis examines how scarcity reshapes partnerships, pricing, and competitive positioning across the ecosystem.

What happened: Scarcity reshapes alliances

The exhaustion of IPv4 address space has shifted IP addresses from a technical resource to a strategic asset. IANA allocated its final unallocated blocks to the five Regional Internet Registries in February 2011. By 2015, ARIN—the registry covering North America—had exhausted its free pool. Today, market prices range from $35 to $52 per address for standard blocks, up from under $10 in 2015.

While IPv6 adoption continues, its deployment remains incomplete across global networks. This gap has created a secondary market for IPv4, where scarcity drives both price escalation and institutional coordination. Rather than solving the shortage independently, network operators are increasingly forming partnerships to secure access.

Also Read: Why early IPv4 adopters are winning the market

IPv4 scarcity and market coordination

The price of IPv4 addresses has risen sharply over the past decade. Large contiguous blocks (/16 or greater) currently trade below $20 per address, while smaller fragments (/22 to /24) command premiums of $35–$52 per address. RIPE NCC alone handled over 4,500 IPv4 transfers during 2024, a 12% increase year-on-year, demonstrating the scale of portfolio restructuring underway across the industry.

This has led to structured agreements between ISPs, cloud providers, and content delivery networks.

One example is address leasing arrangements, where smaller ISPs lease IPv4 blocks from larger holders instead of acquiring them outright. This reduces upfront costs while maintaining operational continuity.

Another pattern is inter-operator collaboration. Regional providers often pool address resources or coordinate routing strategies to maximise utilisation. These arrangements are less about innovation than necessity—reflecting limits in voluntary coordination when resources are fixed and demand continues to grow.

Case study: AWS and address acquisition

A notable case is Amazon Web Services (AWS), which has accumulated substantial IPv4 holdings through direct purchases and transfers to sustain its cloud infrastructure. While exact figures are not publicly disclosed, industry analysis suggests hyperscale cloud providers collectively hold millions of addresses, with AWS among the largest single holders. Instead of relying solely on IPv6, AWS has supplemented its capacity through market acquisitions, ensuring service compatibility for clients still dependent on IPv4.

This approach illustrates how major platforms internalise scarcity: rather than transitioning fully, they accumulate assets. The result is further concentration of address ownership among large actors, reinforcing asymmetries across the ecosystem.

Also Read: The legal landscape of IPv4 trading for ISPs

Counterpoint: IPv6 transition and long-term outlook

Despite IPv4’s continued relevance, IPv6 adoption has reached approximately 45% among major networks (Google, 2025). However, dual-stack requirements mean IPv4 remains essential for interoperability in the medium term. The transition timeline varies significantly by region and sector, with mobile networks leading adoption while enterprise and legacy infrastructure lag behind.

This asymmetry ensures that IPv4 scarcity will persist as a structural constraint for at least the next decade, even as IPv6 deployment continues to expand.

Partnerships as a structural response

IPv4 scarcity is not simply a technical constraint but a governance issue. Strategic partnerships—leasing, transfers, and shared infrastructure—are mechanisms to manage imbalance rather than resolve it.

These arrangements reveal a system where coordination substitutes for abundance. As long as IPv4 remains essential for interoperability, its scarcity will continue to shape alliances, pricing structures, and competitive positioning.

IPv6 may eventually reduce dependence, but the transition remains uneven. Until then, IPv4 addresses will continue to function as both infrastructure and capital—binding operators into increasingly interdependent relationships. Looking ahead, three trends are likely:
(1) further consolidation of address holdings among hyperscalers and cloud providers,
(2) emergence of address-backed financing instruments as IPv4 portfolios gain recognition as balance-sheet assets, and
(3) increased regulatory scrutiny of address concentration in key markets, particularly where competition policy intersects with internet infrastructure.