IP addressing: the next frontier of internet governance debate

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to broaden our understanding of internet governance policy options by reviewing and assessing proposals for reforming the institutional mechanisms used to allocate and assign IPv6 addresses.Design/methodology/approachThe paper begins by identifying the two main economic and technical constraints on IP addressing: route aggregation and address conservation. It then reviews the reform proposals that have been made and assesses the debates that have occurred around those proposals, bearing in mind the key issues of aggregation and conservation. In particular, it attempts to explore whether competition in IP addressing between authorities with diverse policies would be feasible and beneficial.FindingsThe debate over addressing policy is in its early stages and has a long way to go. A review of the debate so far suggests that the introduction of economic incentives in addressing might improve route aggregation rather than worsen it. With respect to conservation and aggregation incentives, policy diversity might help internet service providers find a more optimal trade‐off between the needs of users and the needs of the suppliers of connectivity.Originality/valueThe policy alternatives discussed here could have a major impact on the future of the internet, as address allocation and assignment directly affect the way the internet functions and the distribution of costs and benefits between users and suppliers.