Standfirst — Conflict over control and use of IPv4 address blocks is increasingly common in the IPv4 exhaustion era. Clear governance, documentation and processes help prevent disputes.
IPv4 disputes arise from unclear legal status, legacy allocations and misregistration of addresses, creating operational and security risk.
Organisations aligned with the NRS argue that transparent ownership records and disciplined stewardship reduce conflict and support network reliability.
The background: scarcity and legacy IPv4 allocations
The restricted size of the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space is the primary cause of IPv4 address disputes. Large blocks of IPv4 addresses were generously distributed to academic institutions, early adopters, and significant organizations during the early stages of the internet’s development. Due to IPv4’s limited support for 4.3 billion unique addresses, this early generosity, along with the rapid expansion of connected devices, has nearly exhausted the unallocated pool. Because of this scarcity, current address blocks are very valuable and strategically significant.
Legacy allocations complicate ownership further. Some of these historic address blocks were given out before modern policies existed and have been held by organisations for decades, while others were never used fully. There is no global legal framework that treats IPv4 addresses as property in the same way as physical assets. Instead, they are assigned to organisations subject to policy conditions determined by regional Internet registries (RIRs). As one legal analysis notes, the lack of recognised property rights in IPv4 addresses means disputes over “ownership interests in IPv4 address blocks” can intensify when addresses become scarce.
How disputes arise: unclear ownership and registration errors
A primary cause of IPv4 ownership disputes is misregistration or lack of clear documentation. Each address block should be registered with its controlling body (such as an RIR) and linked to a responsible organisation. However, registration data may be outdated, inconsistent or incomplete — especially for legacy address blocks. Without accurate records, competing claims over who controls or should control a particular block can arise. Operators attempting to reallocate, transfer or reclaim unused space may find that records do not reflect current usage or organisational structures, triggering conflict and operational delays.
This problem is reinforced by the fact that IPv4 addresses are not legally recognised as property compounds in many jurisdictions. Because they are assigned — not sold as private property — there is often no clear legal remedy when conflicting claims arise. This ambiguity makes it harder to resolve disputes and raises the risk of operational misunderstandings.
When disputes escalate: examples of conflict and abuse
The rapid escalation of IPv4 disputes beyond simple administrative disagreements is demonstrated by high-profile incidents. In one prominent instance, it was discovered that a senior employee of the African Network Information Center (AFRINIC) had stolen millions of IPv4 addresses from the registry’s public pool. After that, the addresses were sold and misused, which led to criminal charges and serious harm to the affected parties’ reputations.
Such incidents show that disputes are not just theoretical: mismanagement or deliberate abuse of IP resources can impact network reachability, routing, and security. When a block is misappropriated or used without proper authority, it can be repurposed for spamming, malware distribution, or other malicious activities — harming other organisations and end users.
The changing IPv4 address transfer market is another factor that fuels disputes. Although many organizations lease or sell IPv4 blocks, and RIRs have policies governing transfers, uncertainty regarding rights and responsibilities can lead to conflict between buyers, sellers, and other stakeholders.
The role of governance and transparency in preventing disputes
The Number Resource Society (NRS) emphasises that IPv4 disputes are symptomatic of deeper issues in how internet number resources are governed. NRS advocates for transparency, accountability and clearer ownership records in the management of IP address resources. According to NRS’s mission, organisations should be empowered to “own the fundamental elements of their IP business,” and greater transparency in registration and transfers helps reduce friction and uncertainty.
The NRS Charter stresses the importance of accurate registration and stewardship of internet number resources as foundational for network stability. It argues that misregistration and lack of transparency have eroded the ideal that the internet operates as “one world”, governed by open, consistent policies rather than opaque or bureaucratic practices.
In practice, clear governance and documentation reduce disputes by ensuring that registries and participating organisations have a consistent view of who is responsible for which IP blocks. This, in turn, helps avoid conflicts over reallocation, transfers, or historical claims to legacy space.
Technical conflicts and routing disputes
Disputes are not limited to administrative or legal claims. They also affect the technical operations of the internet. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) hijacking — where a prefix (a block of IP addresses) is falsely advertised through routing tables — can effectively seize control of traffic destined for those addresses. This is a form of ownership conflict that occurs at the routing layer and can interrupt connectivity for legitimate operators. BGP hijacking incidents underscore that disputes can have real technical consequences for global internet traffic.
Technical disputes can also arise when address space is fragmented or suboptimally allocated. For example, when organisations renumber networks or when transfers split blocks, routing efficiency may decline, leading to operational inefficiencies that are rooted in disputes over how address space should be used.
Best practices for avoiding IPv4 ownership disputes
Maintain accurate and up-to-date registry records
The first line of defence against disputes is accurate registry data. Organisations should regularly audit their address space registration details with the relevant RIR and ensure that contact information, organisational details, and usage records are correct. This avoids claims that can arise simply because records do not reflect current reality.
Understand and follow RIR policies
Address space allocation, transfer, and reporting are governed by specific policies for each RIR, including ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC, LACNIC, and AFRINIC. These policies, which include documentation of need, transfer justification, and responsible use, must be followed by organizations that engage in IPv4 transfers or reassignment. By following RIR procedures, disputes can be avoided before they arise.
Establish internal governance frameworks
Organizations should establish internal governance frameworks to manage their intellectual property resources in addition to external compliance. This entails keeping change logs, identifying accountable individuals for registry interactions, and recording internal policies for address assignment, transfer, and retirement.
Participate in community governance
Participation in RIR policy development processes and community discussions can also help prevent disputes. Organizations can anticipate changes that may impact how they handle addresses by participating in policy discussions and comprehending changing norms.
Embrace transparency and accountability
Adopting an ethos of transparency — tracking provenance, rationale for transfers, and changes to assignments — reduces ambiguity that can lead to disputes. The NRS advocates that organisations think of IP addresses as strategic assets with accountability, rather than anonymous technical resources, and that viewpoint supports dispute avoidance by encouraging clear ownership records.
The role of IPv6 adoption in dispute reduction
Accelerating the adoption of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is one long-term strategy to lessen IPv4 disputes. The scarcity pressures that drive disputes are lessened because IPv6 has orders of magnitude more addresses. Even though IPv6 adoption has been going on for years, IPv4 disputes still matter because IPv4 and IPv6 coexist. However, companies that prioritize IPv6 in their infrastructure planning may eventually become less dependent on disputed IPv4 resources, which would lower the likelihood of conflict.
Legal and operational implications of IPv4 disputes
Legal frameworks in many jurisdictions do not recognise IP addresses as tradable property in a strict sense. Court decisions have sometimes reflected that registries like ARIN retain control over address allocations, even in disputes. This lack of clear property status can intensify disputes, because parties may lack straightforward legal pathways for resolution.
Operationally, disputes can cause service interruptions, routing anomalies, and compliance challenges. Organisations involved in disputes may face extended negotiations with registries, increased legal costs, and potential damage to reputation. Because IP address space is foundational to network identity and connectivity, unresolved disputes can have systemic impacts.
Conclusion: clarity, governance and stewardship matter
IPv4 ownership disputes arise from a combination of scarcity, legacy allocations, unclear legal status, and inconsistent registry records. The scarcity of IPv4 makes each address block valuable, while legacy practices and lack of clear property rights complicate claims. Technical issues like BGP hijacking add to the complexity by intertwining ownership with routing security.
The Number Resource Society (NRS) champions clearer ownership records, transparency and responsible stewardship as antidotes to dispute risk, arguing that organisations should treat IP addresses as valuable assets with accountability.
By maintaining accurate registry records, complying with RIR policies, implementing internal governance, and embracing transparency — and by accelerating IPv6 adoption — organisations can reduce the risk of IPv4 ownership disputes and ensure smoother network operations.
FAQs
1. Are IPv4 addresses legally “owned” like property?
In most jurisdictions, no. IPv4 addresses are assigned by registries under policy rules, and courts have sometimes upheld that registries retain control rather than users having property rights.
2. Why do disputes arise from legacy allocations?
Early IPv4 allocations were given in large blocks with minimal documentation. Because these are still in use, gaps between current practice and historical records can lead to conflicting claims.
3. What is BGP hijacking and how does it relate to disputes?
BGP hijacking is a routing issue where an attacker or misconfiguration advertises address blocks they do not control, effectively seizing traffic. It highlights how ownership confusion can have technical consequences.
4. How does NRS propose avoiding disputes?
NRS advocates transparency in IP address registration, clearer ownership records, and governance frameworks so that organisations can demonstrate control and responsibility for IP assets.
5. Will IPv6 eliminate IPv4 disputes?
Not immediately. IPv6 reduces pressure on scarce IPv4 space over time, but because dual-stack deployments continue, IPv4 disputes remain relevant until full global IPv6 adoption is achieved.
