Will IPv4 Prices Rise or Fall in 2026? Scenarios and Market Drivers

This article preserves a historical forward-looking analysis of 2026; it is not a review of the prices actually observed during that year. The editorial revision of October 8, 2026 clarifies the sources and limitations of the original claims without presenting the scenarios as established outcomes.

Key Takeaways

• Pressure on prices for large blocks, alongside more resilient prices for small blocks and steadier lease rates, is one of the scenarios considered. The sources gathered here do not establish it as a demonstrated market trend or an expert consensus.
• The pace of IPv6 deployment is an important structural variable. On its own, however, it is not enough to predict IPv4 prices: available supply, demand for compatibility, transfer policies and contractual terms also matter.

Why Looking Ahead to 2026 Raised Questions About IPv4 Prices

The dwindling supply of addresses available for new allocations has changed how network growth is financed and managed. Rights to use IPv4 blocks can be transferred, while leasing provides access to addresses without immediately committing the capital needed to acquire them. Making use of resources already held has also become an economic consideration.

It is important, however, to distinguish the stages of this depletion. The NRO announcement of February 3, 2011 concerned the exhaustion of IANA’s central pool of unallocated addresses. It did not mean that all regional Internet registries had exhausted their pools that day, or that IPv4 addresses already in service would stop working. Limited opportunities for regional allocations remained, depending on the policies and the period in question.

The secondary market therefore played an important part in thinking ahead to 2026, although it would be wrong to say that all operators had no choice but to obtain addresses exclusively through it. The question was whether persistent demand for compatibility would push prices back up, or whether newly available blocks and the transition to IPv6 would encourage a correction, or even a sustained decline. This question matters both to network managers planning their capacity and to block holders considering a sale or lease.

Buying and Leasing: Two Different Forms of Market Exposure

The original analysis contrasted volatile purchase prices with stable lease rates, particularly for large blocks such as /16s. This contrast remains useful for developing scenarios, but the supplied sources do not include a comparative series of transactions that would establish it as a general finding. The appropriate approach is therefore to explain the possible mechanisms rather than assert that purchase prices and lease rates consistently diverge.

Acquiring a block ties up capital. It exposes the buyer to a potential decline in the block’s transfer value, but may also provide greater control over how long the resources can be used. Leasing converts part of this upfront expenditure into a recurring expense. A contract can make budgeting more predictable for its duration, even if the purchase market fluctuates.

That predictability has limits. Lease rates and terms may change at renewal; continued use depends on the counterparty and the contract. Returning a block may require renumbering, and cumulative lease payments can become substantial over a long period. Leasing therefore shifts certain risks rather than eliminating them.

The RIPE NCC’s October 2024 guide to obtaining IP addresses sets out these trade-offs between allocations, transfers, leasing and reusing resources. Within its historical context, it also describes a limited opportunity for eligible organizations to obtain a /24 through a waiting list. The document thus highlights two essential qualifications: the secondary market was not the only option in every situation, and a lower initial investment did not guarantee that leasing would always be preferable to buying.

Why /16 and /24 Prices May Move Differently

A /16 and a /24 serve different procurement needs. The arrival of a large block can significantly change the supply available to buyers able to finance a substantial acquisition. A small block, meanwhile, may suit the gradual expansion of a network or the more limited needs of a new entrant. The number of potential buyers, their budgets and the timing of their needs may therefore differ by block size.

Routing practices provide further context. Section 6.1.3 of RFC 7454, published in February 2015, describes the then-common practice of filtering IPv4 prefixes more specific than a /24, while noting that practices may evolve. This helps explain the operational value of a /24 in some deployments; it is neither a guarantee of universal reachability nor evidence that its price will prove resilient.

The hypothesis that small-block prices could hold up better therefore rests on demand potentially remaining active for these uses. It must be distinguished from an observation backed by quantitative data. Falling /16 prices could coexist with firmer /24 prices, but no technical rule dictates that market outcome.

Structural Scarcity and a Prolonged Transition

The limited number of IPv4 addresses accounts for part of their value in use. It does not, however, mechanically determine their price: transfers can put resources back into circulation, while network address translation, or NAT, allows multiple users or devices to share public addresses. These mechanisms extend the scope for using IPv4 without expanding its address space.

In his December 16, 2021 analysis of IPv4 markets, Geoff Huston, APNIC’s Chief Scientist, examines market volatility and uncertainty over how long the transition will take. His reasoning sheds light on the relationship between the continued use of IPv4, operators’ economic choices and the difficulty of determining when that dependence will actually diminish.

This analysis is not a price forecast for 2026. It encourages consideration of several possible paths: sharing and transfer mechanisms can defer some purchases while extending IPv4’s economic life; IPv6 deployment can reduce the need for additional addresses without immediately eliminating every compatibility requirement. Uncertainty over this timeline leaves room for expectations, speculative behavior and occasional supply pressures.

Transfer Policies and Liquidity: A Regional Dimension

Physical scarcity is not the only constraint. A block must also be transferable to the buyer who needs it. Registry policies, recipient eligibility requirements and the supporting documentation required influence how readily supply can meet demand.

A clear framework can facilitate transactions and reduce administrative uncertainty. Conversely, restrictions, delays or documentation that is difficult to assemble may limit the supply that is effectively accessible. This can support prices in a particular segment even if demand weakens elsewhere. Greater liquidity, however, guarantees neither low prices nor an absence of volatility.

Looking ahead over the period considered in the article, changes to fees, verification or audit requirements, and eligibility criteria were therefore among the variables to monitor. These were possible effects of policy changes, not announced changes or consequences already measured for 2026.

The Case for Rising Prices

The bullish scenario rests first on the persistence of IPv4 needs where the transition to IPv6 remains incomplete. A business, a small Internet service provider or a network supporting services that still depend on IPv4 may need to maintain that connectivity, even as other organizations reduce their needs. Different migration speeds can therefore sustain demand in particular markets.

Existing systems and operational practices are a second factor. Depending on the architecture, security tools, logging mechanisms or traceability requirements may make it useful to retain public IPv4 addresses. This does not mean that regulations universally favor IPv4 or require a dedicated public address for every user. The need depends on the service, its technical environment and the obligations that actually apply to it.

Finally, holders may choose to defer a sale if they consider their addresses still useful or expect better terms. If this behavior coincides with a resurgence in demand, available supply may tighten. In this scenario, small blocks and resources available in less liquid markets could become more expensive, without necessarily producing a uniform rise in large-block prices.

The Case for Falling Prices

The bearish scenario, by contrast, assumes that the supply offered on the market grows faster than acquisition needs. If long-standing holders release blocks that have become surplus to requirements, buyers may gain more choice and bargaining power. This hypothesis is particularly relevant to large volumes; it does not demonstrate that the market is already saturated.

IPv6 can also reduce marginal demand for IPv4. For mobile networks, content providers and cloud platforms, the development of services that prioritize IPv6, or of IPv6-only internal architectures with compatibility mechanisms, may limit some needs for additional IPv4 addresses. The effect nevertheless depends on actual implementation, the users to be served and the services that must remain accessible.

If these developments accelerated, purchase prices for large blocks could ease. Some residual needs could be met through leasing, particularly where their duration remains uncertain. There is no basis, however, for asserting that leasing would necessarily absorb most demand or that lease rates would remain unchanged.

Expert Context: Preparing for the Transition

John Curran’s article published by ARIN on May 18, 2015 advocated preparing for IPv6, particularly for publicly accessible Internet services and team skills. It set out reasons not to postpone that work. This position, expressed at a specific point in time, concerns deployment and organizational readiness; it does not predict IPv4 prices in 2026.

Read alongside Huston’s discussion of uncertainty surrounding the transition, it helps place IPv4 purchases and leases within a broader technical trajectory. A market can meet an immediate need without resolving the dependence that creates it. The sources do not, however, justify attributing a shared ranking of price scenarios to these authors or to a wider group of analysts.

The perspective adopted here remains one of markets that may diverge by block size, region and transaction timing. It avoids assuming that a single global price could capture every set of procurement conditions.

Who Benefits from Price Changes, and Who Bears the Cost?

The effects of a price change are uneven. An operator that already holds unused resources may defer a purchase, reassign addresses or consider a transfer. A new entrant that must obtain addresses before launching a service has less room to maneuver. A price rise can therefore raise barriers to entry, while a decline can make procurement easier but reduce the value a seller expects to realize.

Medium-sized networks may find leasing a way to spread expenditure, subject to the lease terms. Organizations with available capital may take advantage of a correction to acquire blocks suited to long-term needs. None of these benefits is automatic: the period of use, fees and service continuity affect the economic outcome.

Persistent dependence on IPv4 combined with low transfer liquidity can increase exposure to supply pressures. More accessible transfers and actual progress in IPv6 deployment can, conversely, ease some of those pressures. These mechanisms are not sufficient to establish a ranking of regions or guarantee that their markets will stabilize.

How Operators Could Prepare for 2026

Preparation needed to support operations under several scenarios, without relying entirely on a bet on prices. An audit of addresses already held could reveal underused resources and defer an acquisition. This optimization needed to account for service constraints, since reclaiming addresses may require technical and organizational changes.

Comparing buying with leasing then required looking beyond the initial price. For a temporary or uncertain need, leasing could preserve capital and flexibility. For a lasting need, acquisition could merit consideration. In both cases, the assessment needed to account for the expected duration, fees, transfer or renewal terms, and the potential cost of renumbering.

Moving IPv6 from the experimental stage into routine use in new services and infrastructure was another area of preparation. Its value did not depend solely on an anticipated decline in IPv4 prices: it was also about gradually reducing certain dependencies and developing the necessary skills.

Finally, following regional registries’ proposals and participating in their policy development processes offered a better understanding of changes that could affect access to resources. Transfer policies, fees and required documentation are part of the economic terms of a transaction.

Three Plausible Scenarios for 2026

1. A moderate correction. Additional blocks coming onto the market would put downward pressure on prices for large volumes, while demand arising from gradual network growth would provide greater support for small blocks. Lease rates could remain relatively firm if temporary needs persisted. The historical article presented this correction as likely: that was its qualitative assessment, without a numerical probability, a calibrated forecasting method or validation by an expert consensus.
2. A short-term price spike. Unexpected demand or a disruption to transfer conditions could abruptly tighten accessible supply. The historical article considered this scenario less likely than a moderate correction, again as an editorial assessment. Under this hypothesis, the movement would be temporary if the disruption subsided; its duration could not be guaranteed. Operators compelled to buy quickly would be particularly exposed.
3. A gradual decline. An actual acceleration in IPv6 deployment would reduce the need for additional IPv4 addresses enough to exert sustained downward pressure on prices. This path would require tangible changes in deployment and use, beyond announcements. Its extent would also depend on the blocks returned to the market, continuing compatibility needs and transfer options. IPv6 would therefore be a possible driver of this decline, without being a sufficient predictor on its own.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Are IPv4 address prices certain to rise in 2026?

   No. The historical scenarios include both upward and downward pressures. Outcomes could differ by block size, regional transfer conditions and the timing of needs. This analysis does not establish any price movement already observed in 2026.

2. Is leasing IPv4 addresses safer than buying them?

   It can reduce the capital committed and make some expenses predictable for the duration of the contract. It nevertheless retains renewal, counterparty and renumbering risks, as well as a cumulative cost that needs to be assessed. Buying entails greater exposure to the risk of a decline in the block’s value; the choice depends on the need and its duration, with no universal advantage to leasing.

3. How does IPv6 adoption affect IPv4 address prices?

   When IPv6 actually reduces IPv4 needs, it can ease demand and price pressure. This effect may be gradual and uneven, since compatibility remains necessary for some uses. Supply offered for sale, liquidity and holders’ choices must also be considered: the rate of IPv6 deployment alone is not enough to predict a price.

4. Should new Internet service providers buy IPv4 addresses in 2026?

   Leasing alongside a deployment that prioritized IPv6 was one option considered for limiting the initial investment. It was not a recommendation applicable to all new entrants. A lasting need, total cost, renewal terms and the ability to renumber could justify a different decision. Any small allocations potentially available under the relevant registry’s policies also needed to be considered.

5. Which regions are most exposed to price volatility?

   In the article’s reasoning, heavy dependence on IPv4 and low transfer liquidity can make a market more sensitive to supply pressures. That is not enough to identify the most volatile regions without comparative data. The applicable policies, the supply actually accessible and the concentration of needs must be examined together.