2026 IPv4 Transfer Data: The Short Answer

IPv4 transfer data in 2026 shows that address scarcity has not stopped IPv4 from moving between organizations. Instead, scarcity has shifted a significant part of IPv4 distribution from new allocation toward the redistribution of address space that already exists.

Public RIR transfer data shows the scale of this secondary movement.

APNIC’s analysis of global RIR transfer logs reported approximately 33.4 million IPv4 addresses transferred during 2025, up from 30.2 million in 2024.

The RIPE NCC has continued to report substantial activity in 2026. Adding its published monthly figures from January through July 2026 gives approximately 16.72 million IPv4 addresses transferred in the RIPE NCC service region alone.

July was particularly active, with the RIPE NCC reporting approximately 5.94 million IPv4 addresses transferred in a single month.

These numbers do not mean IPv4 scarcity is disappearing.

They mean existing IPv4 resources are continuing to move toward organizations that need them.

That distinction is fundamental to understanding today’s IPv4 market.

IPv4 Is Scarce, but It Is Not Static

IPv4 uses a 32-bit address space.

That produces roughly 4.3 billion possible addresses, with a smaller portion available for ordinary public use after reservations and special-use ranges are considered.

As Internet adoption expanded, the Regional Internet Registries gradually depleted the large pools of unallocated IPv4 address space that supported the Internet’s early growth.

The result was not the disappearance of IPv4.

Instead, the economic and operational model changed.

Organizations that need additional IPv4 space increasingly rely on combinations of:

• previously allocated resources;

• IPv4 transfers;

• provider-supplied addresses;

• address leasing arrangements;

• network consolidation;

• address reclamation;

• IPv6 deployment; and

• technologies that reduce direct IPv4 requirements.

Transfers are particularly important because they allow already-distributed IPv4 resources to move from one organization to another.

As NRS explains in its guide to how IP address registries work, registry systems help maintain the records that make these changes visible and administratively understandable.

How Much IPv4 Was Transferred in 2025?

APNIC’s annual analysis of RIR transfer logs provides one of the clearest global views.

According to its January 2026 review, approximately 33.4 million IPv4 addresses were recorded as transferred during 2025.

That represented an increase from approximately 30.2 million in 2024.

The recent trend looks like this:

Source: APNIC — IP addresses through 2025

The data shows two things.

First, IPv4 transfers remain a substantial feature of the Internet number resource system.

Second, the market is not moving in a simple straight line.

Transfer volumes can vary significantly from year to year.

The 2022 total of approximately 44.3 million addresses remains well above the 2025 figure.

This means one year of higher transfer volume should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of accelerating scarcity, falling scarcity or increasing market value.

Transfer statistics need context.

Which RIR Regions Received the Most Transferred IPv4 in 2025?

The 2025 data becomes even more interesting when broken down by receiving RIR.

Source: APNIC — IP addresses through 2025

The regional differences are significant.

Approximately two-thirds of the reported 2025 transfer volume was associated with resources received in the RIPE NCC service region.

ARIN was the second-largest receiving region by transferred address volume.

APNIC, despite serving some of the world’s largest and fastest-growing Internet markets, accounted for a considerably smaller share of transferred addresses.

These differences can reflect many factors, including:

• regional policy;

• historical resource distribution;

• demand;

• corporate restructuring;

• market participation;

• block availability;

• transfer practices; and

• the composition of individual transactions.

It would therefore be misleading to interpret the figures as a simple ranking of which regions “need IPv4 most.”

They show where registered transfers were recorded.

ARIN Transfer Volume Increased Sharply in 2025

One notable data point is ARIN.

APNIC’s consolidated RIR data shows approximately:

• 1.6 million transferred IPv4 addresses received in the ARIN region in 2023;

• 4.5 million in 2024; and

• 8.4 million in 2025.

That is a substantial increase over two years.

ARIN also maintains dedicated current-year statistics covering:

• transfer requests;

• transfer tickets processed;

• in-region IPv4 transfers;

• inter-RIR transfers into the ARIN region; and

• inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN region.

Network operators can follow current information through ARIN’s Statistics & Reporting.

The increase does not necessarily mean every ARIN transfer is an open-market purchase.

RIR transfer data can include several categories of change, depending on the registry and policy framework, including specified-recipient transfers and organizational changes such as mergers or acquisitions.

That distinction matters when interpreting “market” data.

RIPE NCC Transfer Activity Remains High in 2026

The RIPE NCC publishes monthly transfer figures in its member updates.

Its reported 2026 figures through July are:

Sources: RIPE NCC monthly member updates for February through August 2026.

This is an important number.

More than 16.7 million IPv4 addresses were reported as transferred in the RIPE NCC region during the first seven months of 2026.

But the monthly pattern is equally important.

The numbers did not increase smoothly.

January was below one million.

April rose above 2.8 million.

May and June fell back below two million.

Then July jumped to almost 5.94 million.

This illustrates why analysts should be careful when interpreting short-term IPv4 transfer statistics.

A small number of large transactions can materially affect monthly transfer volume.

July 2026 Shows How Volatile Transfer Data Can Be

The RIPE NCC’s July figure represented roughly 35% of its entire January-to-July transferred address volume.

That does not necessarily mean underlying IPv4 demand suddenly increased by 35%.

Transfer volume is affected by the size and timing of transactions.

For example, one transfer involving a very large address block can produce more total addresses than many transfers involving smaller prefixes.

This is why two different measurements should be distinguished:

Number of transfer transactions

and

Number of addresses transferred

They answer different questions.

A market can have:

• many small transactions but modest total address volume; or

• relatively few transactions containing very large IPv4 blocks.

For serious analysis, both transaction count and address volume matter.

Does High IPv4 Transfer Volume Mean IPv4 Is No Longer Scarce?

No.

This is one of the most important conclusions to draw from the data.

A transferred IPv4 address is not a newly created IPv4 address.

Transfers redistribute already-existing resources.

Imagine an economy with 100 scarce assets.

If 20 of them change owners during a year, there are still only 100 assets.

Higher transaction volume may improve the ability of resources to move toward organizations that value or need them.

It does not increase the underlying supply.

The same principle applies to IPv4.

Transfer activity can improve liquidity.

It does not eliminate scarcity.

What IPv4 Transfers Actually Tell Us About Scarcity

Transfer data provides evidence of a structural change in how IPv4 resources are distributed.

Before exhaustion, an organization that needed additional address space could often obtain new resources from the applicable RIR under the policies then in effect.

As those large free pools disappeared, unused or underused address space already held by organizations became more important.

APNIC describes this logic directly in its explanation of IPv4 exhaustion and address transfers.

Transfers provide a mechanism for addresses to move from organizations that no longer require them toward organizations that do.

In economic terms, scarcity creates an incentive to improve utilization of the existing stock.

2025 Transfer Volume Was Higher Than 2024—but Below the 2022 Peak

Another useful lesson from the data is that IPv4 scarcity does not necessarily produce a continuously rising transfer curve.

Global reported transfer volume was:

44.3 million in 2022

then:

25.3 million in 2023

followed by:

30.2 million in 2024

and:

33.4 million in 2025

Scarcity remained throughout this period.

Yet transfer volume moved significantly.

Why?

Because transfer volume is influenced by more than scarcity.

Possible factors include:

• availability of willing transfer sources;

• buyer demand;

• transaction size;

• corporate transactions;

• regional policies;

• economic conditions;

• price expectations;

• network architecture changes; and

• timing of large transactions.

This is why “IPv4 is scarce” and “transfer volume is increasing” are related observations, but they are not the same statement.

What Does the 2026 Data Suggest So Far?

It is still too early to make a final statement about global 2026 transfer volume.

Full-year data does not yet exist.

However, the available figures suggest that redistribution remains very active.

The RIPE NCC alone had reported more than 16.7 million transferred IPv4 addresses through July.

For comparison, the RIPE NCC region received approximately 22.3 million transferred addresses across all of 2025 in APNIC’s consolidated annual dataset.

That does not mean 2026 will necessarily exceed 2025.

Later months could be quieter.

Nor should datasets with different reporting formats be treated as perfectly interchangeable without checking their methodology.

But the figures clearly show that IPv4 transfers remain a significant part of Internet number resource administration in 2026.

APNIC: Transfers Remain Important Even as Volumes Differ by Region

APNIC’s 2025 annual reporting described transfer activity as remaining high relative to the longer-term trend, even though total transferred IPv4 volume in 2025 was below the levels seen in some earlier years.

The APNIC region received approximately 2.4 million transferred addresses in 2025, according to the consolidated RIR transfer dataset.

APNIC’s current policy explicitly supports transfers of IPv4 resources between eligible organizations, including certain inter-RIR transfers.

Its policy explains that transfers help move IPv4 resources from organizations that no longer require them to organizations that need addresses but cannot obtain sufficient space from the free pool.

Current policy information is available in the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies.

That policy purpose highlights an important distinction:

Transfers are not evidence that exhaustion failed.

Transfers are one of the mechanisms created to operate in an exhausted environment.

IPv4 Scarcity Is Really a Reallocation Problem Now

Historically, IPv4 growth was primarily an allocation problem.

The question was:

How should new address space be distributed?

In the post-exhaustion environment, the question increasingly becomes:

How can existing address space move efficiently, transparently and accurately when organizational needs change?

That creates a different set of operational requirements.

Network operators need to understand:

• resource registration;

• transfer eligibility;

• documentation;

• RIR procedures;

• address history;

• routing;

• RPKI;

• IRR data;

• reverse DNS;

• reputation;

• corporate authority; and

• post-transfer continuity.

IPv4 scarcity has therefore moved the issue from simple allocation toward resource lifecycle management.

Why Registry Accuracy Becomes More Important When Addresses Move

Transfer markets depend on reliable records.

If an IPv4 block changes organizational control but the surrounding registration information remains inaccurate, other systems can become harder to interpret.

Accurate registry information can help operators understand:

• the registered address range;

• the relevant RIR;

• associated organizations or entities;

• administrative contacts;

• transfer history where available;

• important record events.

This is one reason NRS emphasizes registry accuracy as part of wider resource management.

Network teams can use RDAP records to inspect structured registration information, but registry data should still be interpreted alongside operational evidence.

A Transfer Record Is Not the Same as Routing Reality

IPv4 transfer data describes registry-level changes.

BGP describes routing.

These layers are related but not identical.

Suppose a prefix is transferred from Organization A to Organization B.

Several additional changes may need to occur:

1. Registry information changes.

2. Account control changes.

3. BGP origin may change.

4. RPKI ROAs may need updating.

5. IRR route objects may need updating.

6. Reverse DNS may need to change.

7. Geolocation databases may need time to update.

8. Customer and security systems may still contain old information.

A completed registry transfer therefore does not automatically prove every operational system has changed correctly.

Why This Matters for RPKI

A transferred prefix may later be originated by a different ASN.

If a Route Origin Authorization remains configured for an old origin ASN, new routing could become RPKI Invalid.

That can create reachability problems on networks that perform Route Origin Validation.

Transfer planning should therefore include:

• current ROAs;

• intended origin ASN;

• prefix length;

• maxLength;

• migration timing; and

• validation monitoring.

The registry transfer and routing-security transition should be treated as coordinated but distinct tasks.

Inter-RIR Transfers Add Another Layer

Some IPv4 resources move not only between organizations but also between RIR regions.

These are known as inter-RIR transfers.

For example, an eligible resource might move between organizations associated with:

• ARIN and APNIC;

• ARIN and RIPE NCC; or

• other compatible RIR frameworks.

Inter-RIR transfers can require coordination between the policies and procedures of both registries.

This means organizations need to understand:

• source-RIR requirements;

• recipient-RIR requirements;

• resource eligibility;

• documentation;

• corporate authority;

• timing;

• routing transition;

• post-transfer registry records.

The existence of inter-RIR transfers also shows that IPv4 demand does not stop at regional boundaries.

Resources can move toward different markets as operational needs change.

Why Transfer Data Should Not Be Treated as Price Data

Transfer volume and IPv4 price are related market signals, but they are not interchangeable.

A high-volume transfer month does not automatically mean:

• prices increased;

• prices decreased;

• demand increased;

• supply increased.

Price formation can depend on:

• block size;

• fragmentation;

• RIR;

• resource history;

• transaction structure;

• reputation;

• urgency;

• available inventory;

• buyer requirements.

Likewise, a lower transfer-volume month does not automatically signal lower demand.

It may simply mean fewer large transactions closed during that period.

For this reason, NRS recommends treating RIR transfer statistics primarily as resource-movement data, rather than attempting to infer market price directly from transfer volumes.

Large Blocks Can Distort the Headline Numbers

Consider two hypothetical months.

Month A

100 organizations each transfer a /24.

That equals:

25,600 IPv4 addresses

Month B

One organization transfers a /12.

That equals:

1,048,576 IPv4 addresses

Month B would show more than 40 times the address volume, even though Month A contained far more individual transactions.

This illustrates why market analysis should distinguish:

• transaction count;

• prefix size;

• total address volume;

• regional movement; and

• transfer type.

Headline address volume alone cannot explain market structure.

Market Liquidity and Address Scarcity Can Exist at the Same Time

At first glance, “scarce” and “liquid” may sound contradictory.

They are not.

A resource can be scarce while still being actively traded or transferred.

In fact, scarcity can increase the incentive to make underused resources available to others.

IPv4 demonstrates this clearly.

The limited address stock creates scarcity.

Transfer frameworks create a mechanism for redistribution.

A more active transfer system can therefore improve liquidity without changing the finite nature of IPv4.

What Should Network Operators Learn From the Data?

The most important lesson is not that organizations should rush to buy or sell IPv4.

The lesson is that IPv4 resources are increasingly mobile infrastructure assets whose administrative and operational state can change over time.

Organizations should therefore know:

What IPv4 resources they depend on

Maintain a complete prefix inventory.

Which RIR administers each resource

ARIN, APNIC, RIPE NCC, LACNIC and AFRINIC operate different policy environments.

What the registry currently records

Review WHOIS and RDAP data.

How the resource entered the organization

Document allocations, assignments, transfers, acquisitions and other relevant history.

Who controls administrative access

Registry accounts should not depend on a single former employee or undocumented credential.

How the prefix is routed

Monitor BGP origin and visibility.

Whether routing authorization is correct

Review RPKI and applicable IRR information.

What depends on the addresses

Document:

• customers;

• APIs;

• security allowlists;

• DNS;

• VPNs;

• cloud infrastructure;

• email systems;

• partner integrations.

These checks become increasingly important as IPv4 resources move between organizations.

IPv4 Transfer Due Diligence Should Go Beyond the Registry

Before an organization receives a transferred IPv4 resource, a wider review may include:

NRS provides a broader framework in its guide to auditing an organization’s Internet number resources.

The goal is not merely to confirm that a transfer can occur.

It is to make sure the resource can be incorporated into the network safely and predictably.

Why Public Transfer Logs Matter

Public transfer records perform another important role.

They help preserve a visible history of resource movement.

That history can support:

• operational troubleshooting;

• due diligence;

• registry accuracy;

• research;

• market analysis;

• infrastructure planning.

APNIC has noted that transfer mechanisms were designed not only to support redistribution but also to ensure that address movement is recorded within the registry system.

This is especially important for a resource class that can remain operational for decades.

As addresses change organizational context, historical traceability becomes increasingly valuable.

Does IPv6 Make IPv4 Transfer Data Irrelevant?

No.

IPv6 is the long-term answer to IPv4 address-space limitations.

But IPv6 deployment does not instantly remove existing IPv4 dependencies.

Many organizations still operate services that require IPv4 because of:

• customer connectivity;

• legacy applications;

• partner systems;

• hosting platforms;

• cloud architecture;

• access controls;

• devices or networks without complete IPv6 support.

That means IPv4 transfers can remain economically and operationally relevant even as IPv6 adoption increases.

The two trends can occur simultaneously:

IPv6 grows.

Existing IPv4 continues to be redistributed.

Is IPv4 Scarcity Getting Worse?

Transfer statistics alone cannot answer that question.

Scarcity depends on the relationship between available supply and demand.

RIR transfer data tells us how much registered address space has changed organizational hands.

It does not directly tell us:

• how many organizations wanted addresses but could not obtain them;

• how much unused IPv4 exists;

• how much demand was satisfied through leasing;

• market-clearing prices;

• how much address space was internally reclaimed;

• how IPv6 reduced demand.

However, one conclusion is clear:

Large-scale transfer activity is consistent with a world in which organizations continue to need IPv4 after traditional free-pool exhaustion.

If abundant new IPv4 space were freely available, there would be far less reason to build and use transfer mechanisms at this scale.

What the 2026 Data Really Tells Us

The data does not support the conclusion that IPv4 is disappearing.

It also does not support the conclusion that transfers have solved IPv4 scarcity.

A better interpretation is:

1. IPv4 remains operationally important

Millions of addresses continue to move between organizations.

2. Existing resources are being recycled

Transfer markets redistribute existing address space rather than create new supply.

3. Regional patterns differ significantly

RIPE NCC, ARIN and APNIC show very different transfer volumes.

4. Monthly data can be volatile

Large individual transactions can dramatically change headline totals.

5. Registry accuracy becomes more important as resources move

Transfers need to be reflected reliably in registration systems.

6. Operational state must be checked separately

Registry transfer, BGP routing, RPKI, IRR and DNS are different layers.

7. IPv4 management is becoming lifecycle management

Organizations increasingly need processes covering acquisition, use, transfer, security, documentation and continuity.

Final Takeaway

IPv4 scarcity has not frozen the address space.

It has changed how that space moves.

Global RIR data shows approximately 33.4 million IPv4 addresses were recorded as transferred in 2025, compared with 30.2 million in 2024.

The RIPE NCC then reported more than 16.7 million transferred addresses from January through July 2026, including almost 5.94 million in July alone.

Those numbers demonstrate active redistribution.

They do not demonstrate new supply.

IPv4 transfers move existing scarcity; they do not create additional IPv4 address space.

For network operators, this makes accurate resource administration increasingly important.

Organizations should understand:

• what resources they hold or use;

• where those resources are registered;

• how they were obtained;

• who controls them administratively;

• how they are routed;

• whether RPKI and IRR data are correct;

• and which services depend on their continued operation.

The future of IPv4 is therefore not simply a question of how many addresses remain.

It is increasingly a question of how existing addresses move, how accurately those movements are recorded, and how safely networks maintain continuity when resources change hands.

Data Sources

• APNIC — IP addresses through 2025

• ARIN — Statistics & Reporting

• RIPE NCC — Member Updates

• APNIC — IPv4 Exhaustion and Address Transfers

• APNIC — Internet Number Resource Policies