URL is currently showing as http://index.html/

Correct URL: https://toonk.io/ipv4-sale-wide-and-apnic-selling-43-8/index...

I tried to re-submit with the correct URL, but it got erroneously canonicalized to the same thing and marked as a dupe.

It's at least somewhat inherent to the technology. DOCSIS download channels are shared among subscribers; upload channels are allocated exclusively per-subscriber. This architecture provides economic incentives for the provider to provision asymmetric circuits rather than symmetric ones.

The letter specifically calls for symmetrical speeds of at least 100Mbps. Let's hope that this is the death of PON-based FTTH.

I'm not trying to be aggressive here (specially since I'm WAY out of my lane when it comes to networking), but what's wrong with PON?

It's asymmetric, providing far less upload capacity than download.

It doesn't have to be. I'm on a PON, I've got symmetrical upload speeds.

It can be, but the two biggest PON operators in the US (AT&T and Verizon) offer symmetric speeds.

AT&T fiber in San Jose was GPON which is a 2.5 G down/1.25G up, split to several households (where I was, it was sixish lots per pole, but some lots had several units, and I'm not sure if the fiber to the pole was split earlier). They sell 1g/1g service on that, and it's clearly oversubscribed heavier on upload than download. 2:1 down:up is way better than most DSL ratios, and I usually saw better up than down speeds.

PON doesn't require asymmetry. It's just a way of coupling to fiber without requiring a power.

There are five regulatory bodies managing it. Six, if you count IANA.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2...

https://afrinic.net/policy/manual

https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/

https://www.lacnic.net/1033/2/lacnic/policies

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-policies

I think we'll still see some people doing NAT66, unfortunately.

Autonomous System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet)

The exception to this is a handful of remaining "legacy" pre-RIR address holders. I'm surprised AWS, etc. are so willingly handing the addresses they buy from legacy holders over to ARIN.

What kind of entities does your broker rent them out to? Are you worried at all about tenants trashing your IPs' reputation and future market value?

This is a good question, I don't get why you are downvoted. I also own some /22 and I've been so far reluctant to rent them for the reasons you mentioned.

What are you currently using them for? Are they just sitting dormant ?

Right now yeah, mostly dormant. Some are used for an anycast http frontend and anycast irc, but that's pretty much it.

The smallest routable IPv4 network on the Internet is a /24, which is 256 addresses. Regional Internet Registries won't assign you smaller than a /24, but individual ISPs might. Even if you have an assignment, maintaining it requires payment of annual fees to your RIR, unless you're a lucky "legacy" address holder from before the RIRs were formed.

I own a /24 from the early 90's, registered before ARIN and the other RIRs existed. It is considered a legacy block and I've never signed the legacy registration agreement, so no fees for me! I do have it routed to my home network over a "business broadband" connection.

Jealous! I pay ARIN hundreds of dollars a year in RSA fees.

As a legacy address holder, how do you feel about RPKI?

I use my network mostly for experimentation and it is unlikely to be a target for hijack. If I were a commercial enterprise I would want RPKI for the future. Currently it seems mostly irrelevant in a practical sense, due to the small number of ASes actually validating.

Some carriers are engaging in IPv6-only peering spats, which is also harming adoption. Cogent, recipient (and rejector) of the famous Peering Cake[1], has no IPv6 routes to Google or Hurricane Electric, for example.

[1] https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/sites/datacenterknowledg...