IPv4 Demand in 2026: What RIR Waiting Lists Reveal

IPv4 Demand in 2026: The Short Answer

IPv4 waiting-list data in 2026 shows that demand for limited address space continues years after the major Regional Internet Registries exhausted their general-purpose free pools.

The clearest examples come from the RIPE NCC and ARIN.

In August 2026, the RIPE NCC reported:

• 757 LIRs on its IPv4 Waiting List

• 467 days of waiting for the LIR at the front of the queue

Earlier in 2026, the queue had reached 841 LIRs, with the first LIR waiting more than 500 days.

ARIN uses a different waiting-list model. Through its first three 2026 distributions, ARIN reported fulfilling:

• 149 requests in January

• 67 requests in April

• 307 requests in July

That is 523 waiting-list requests fulfilled through July 2026.

These figures do not represent the entire IPv4 market.

Not every organization qualifies for a waiting list, not every RIR uses one, and many networks obtain additional IPv4 through transfers, providers or other arrangements.

But the data supports one important conclusion:

IPv4 exhaustion did not eliminate demand. It changed the mechanisms through which limited IPv4 resources are allocated, recovered and redistributed.

What Does an IPv4 Waiting List Measure?

An IPv4 waiting list is a mechanism used by some Regional Internet Registries to distribute limited address space when demand cannot be satisfied from a normal general-purpose free pool.

The basic concept is straightforward.

An organization qualifies under the applicable policy.

IPv4 is not immediately available.

The qualifying request enters a queue.

When eligible address space returns to the registry’s available inventory, it can be distributed according to the registry’s waiting-list rules.

But waiting-list statistics need to be interpreted carefully.

A waiting list measures:

qualified demand under a specific RIR policy and allocation mechanism.

It does not measure total global IPv4 demand.

Organizations that need IPv4 may also use:

• IPv4 transfers;

• provider-assigned addresses;

• leasing or other contractual arrangements;

• existing internal address holdings;

• address reclamation;

• carrier-grade NAT;

• cloud-provider addressing;

• IPv6 deployment.

For that reason, a queue of 757 organizations does not mean there are only 757 organizations seeking IPv4.

It means 757 eligible LIRs were in that particular RIPE NCC allocation queue at that reporting point.

For a broader explanation of how regional registries differ, NRS compares APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC and their roles in Internet number resource management.

RIRs Do Not All Handle Post-Exhaustion IPv4 the Same Way

Another important point is that there is no single global “RIR IPv4 waiting list.”

Regional policies differ.

RIPE NCC

The RIPE NCC operates a waiting list for recovered IPv4 resources.

Each eligible LIR can receive one /24, containing 256 IPv4 addresses.

Eligibility is restricted, meaning the waiting-list mechanism is not a general replacement for the large allocations that existed before exhaustion.

ARIN

ARIN also operates an IPv4 Waiting List, but its eligibility and allocation model is different.

IPv4 that becomes available through mechanisms such as returns or revocations can be used to satisfy qualifying waiting-list requests.

APNIC

APNIC provides another example of why waiting-list data should not be treated as a universal metric.

APNIC abolished its waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests in 2019.

Instead, it continues to make limited IPv4 available through its post-exhaustion framework, while organizations requiring more address space may need to consider mechanisms such as transfers.

The practical lesson is:

Post-exhaustion demand exists within different policy systems, so raw numbers from different RIRs should not be compared as though they measure exactly the same thing.

RIPE NCC IPv4 Waiting-List Data in 2026

The RIPE NCC’s 2026 reporting provides a useful view of how the queue changed during the year.

Several observations stand out.

First, the queue remained substantial throughout the period.

Second, it did not move in only one direction.

The queue reached 841 LIRs during the spring, later fell to 713 and then moved back above 750.

Third, the waiting time for the first LIR remained measured in hundreds of days.

That indicates that limited recovered supply is being distributed into a continuing queue of qualifying requests.

What Does a 467-Day Wait Actually Mean?

The RIPE NCC reported in August 2026 that the LIR at the front of its IPv4 queue had been waiting 467 days.

That does not mean every LIR waits exactly 467 days.

Waiting time depends on:

• when the request entered the queue;

• how much recovered IPv4 becomes available;

• how quickly resources pass required administrative processes;

• how the waiting-list policy is applied.

The queue can fall when recovered addresses become available and are allocated.

It can rise again as new qualifying requests enter.

The more useful interpretation is therefore not:

“IPv4 now takes exactly 467 days.”

It is:

Even under a tightly limited allocation mechanism, qualifying organizations continue to enter a queue in which the oldest request can remain outstanding for well over a year.

Why Is the RIPE NCC Waiting List Limited to a /24?

A /24 contains 256 IPv4 addresses.

That is small compared with the address requirements of many large networks.

The waiting list therefore is not designed to recreate the old environment in which substantial new IPv4 allocations could be issued from a large free pool.

Instead, it provides limited recovered address space to qualifying organizations under current policy.

This matters when interpreting demand.

A company needing a /16, /18 or even /20 cannot treat the waiting list as an equivalent source of supply.

For larger requirements, organizations may need to consider other mechanisms.

That is one reason IPv4 transfers have become an important part of the post-exhaustion environment.

NRS examines the scale of this redistribution in 2026 IPv4 Transfer Market Data: What RIR Statistics Reveal About Address Scarcity.

ARIN Waiting-List Distributions in 2026

ARIN provides a different view of post-exhaustion demand.

Rather than only publishing queue metrics, ARIN periodically distributes available resources to qualifying waiting-list requests.

Through July 2026, ARIN reported:

The difference between April and July is notable.

Only 67 requests were fulfilled in April.

Three months later, 307 were fulfilled.

That does not mean IPv4 demand suddenly increased by more than four times.

The amount of waiting-list activity that can be fulfilled depends heavily on what IPv4 resources become available to ARIN.

Where Does Waiting-List IPv4 Come From?

The general IPv4 free pools are no longer functioning as they did during the Internet’s earlier growth period.

Waiting-list distributions therefore do not represent a return to normal free-pool allocation.

Resources can become available again through mechanisms such as:

• voluntary returns;

• revocations;

• resource recovery;

• other address space returned to available inventory.

This distinction is important.

The registry is not creating new IPv4 addresses.

It is recycling address space that already exists within the fixed IPv4 system.

That makes IPv4 increasingly a lifecycle-management issue rather than simply an allocation issue.

Waiting Lists and IPv4 Transfers Measure Different Things

Waiting-list data and transfer data are both useful.

But they answer different questions.

Waiting Lists

Help show:

How many eligible organizations are seeking limited registry-distributed IPv4 that is not immediately available?

Transfer Data

Helps show:

How much already-issued IPv4 address space is moving between organizations?

These are complementary signals.

In 2026, IPv4 transfer activity remains substantial.

At the same time, RIPE NCC continues to report hundreds of LIRs in its waiting-list queue, while ARIN continues fulfilling qualifying waiting-list requests through recovered inventory.

The two mechanisms can coexist because they serve different parts of the post-exhaustion environment.

Does the Waiting List Prove IPv4 Is Still Scarce?

Waiting-list data is consistent with continuing scarcity, but it should not be used alone as proof of total market conditions.

IPv4 scarcity has a straightforward technical foundation.

IPv4 contains a finite 32-bit address space.

The large pools of previously unallocated resources available during the Internet’s earlier growth have been exhausted or heavily rationed across the RIR system.

What the 2026 waiting-list data adds is evidence that:

eligible organizations are still requesting limited address resources under post-exhaustion allocation mechanisms.

But scarcity should not be reduced to one queue statistic.

Other evidence includes:

• continuing IPv4 transfers;

• final-pool allocation restrictions;

• use of recovered resources;

• address reclamation;

• commercial transactions;

• continued use of IPv4 across production networks.

Together, these signals describe an environment where IPv4 remains operationally useful while unrestricted new supply no longer exists.

A Waiting List Is Not the Same as Market Demand

This distinction is especially important.

A registry waiting list is a policy mechanism.

A market is broader.

Some organizations that need IPv4 may never appear on a waiting list because they:

• are not eligible;

• need more addresses than the mechanism can provide;

• need IPv4 faster than the queue can supply it;

• obtain addresses through a transfer;

• receive addresses from a connectivity provider;

• lease resources;

• reclaim internal address space;

• deploy IPv6 or address-sharing technologies.

Therefore:

Waiting-list data is a useful demand indicator, not a complete demand measurement.

The same caution applies when interpreting IPv4 transfer statistics.

No single dataset describes the entire IPv4 environment.

What APNIC Tells Us About Demand Without a Waiting List

APNIC provides a useful counterexample.

Its waiting list was abolished in 2019.

Yet that did not mean IPv4 demand disappeared in Asia Pacific.

APNIC continues to ration remaining resources.

Eligible organizations can receive only a limited amount from the applicable remaining pool, while organizations requiring additional space may need to use transfer mechanisms or other network strategies.

This illustrates an important analytical principle:

The absence of a waiting list does not prove the absence of IPv4 demand.

It may simply mean the region uses a different policy mechanism for handling post-exhaustion conditions.

Recovered IPv4 Has a Resource History

Returned or revoked IPv4 addresses are not “new.”

They may have been used previously by another organization.

That history can have practical consequences.

A network receiving recycled address space may need to check:

• IP reputation;

• blocklists;

• geolocation databases;

• reverse DNS;

• routing history;

• previous BGP origins.

Registry eligibility is therefore only one part of deployment readiness.

This is another example of why Internet number resource management extends beyond allocation.

Registry State and Operational State Remain Different

Suppose an organization receives a /24 through a waiting-list mechanism.

The registry records may correctly identify the new resource relationship.

That does not automatically mean every other operational layer is ready.

The organization may still need to configure:

• BGP routing;

• origin ASN;

• RPKI ROAs;

• IRR route objects;

• reverse DNS;

• firewall policies;

• monitoring;

• customer systems.

Registry allocation and network deployment are connected but distinct.

This principle is central to good resource management:

A registry record should be accurate, but a registry record does not replace operational verification.

NRS explains this distinction in more detail in What Is an IP Address Registry and How Does It Work?.

Why Waiting-List Data Matters for Resource Lifecycle Management

The post-exhaustion IPv4 environment has changed what organizations need to manage.

Historically, the focus could be heavily weighted toward obtaining addresses.

Today, organizations increasingly need to manage the complete lifecycle:

Acquire

How did the resource enter the organization?

Register

Are the external records accurate?

Deploy

How is the prefix routed and secured?

Monitor

Do BGP, RPKI, IRR and DNS remain aligned?

Recover

Who can regain administrative control if key staff leave?

Transfer or Retire

What happens when the organization no longer needs the resource?

Waiting-list data is therefore part of a larger story.

IPv4 is no longer primarily a question of allocating untouched address space.

It is increasingly a question of managing a finite resource over long periods of time.

What Does the 2026 Data Reveal About Unmet Demand?

The data supports several observations.

1. Qualifying demand continues

Hundreds of RIPE NCC LIRs remained in the queue during 2026.

ARIN continued to fulfill hundreds of qualifying waiting-list requests.

Post-exhaustion demand has not disappeared.

2. Returned resources matter

Waiting-list fulfillment increasingly depends on IPv4 becoming available again through recovery, returns or similar mechanisms.

The system therefore depends increasingly on resource recycling.

3. Demand cannot be inferred from queue size alone

Eligibility requirements narrow the population represented in waiting-list statistics.

Demand outside those mechanisms can be invisible to the queue.

4. Waiting time is another useful signal

RIPE NCC’s oldest queued request had been waiting 467 days in the August 2026 update.

Supply timing therefore matters as much as queue size.

5. Regional models differ

ARIN, RIPE NCC and APNIC demonstrate different ways of managing limited IPv4 after exhaustion.

There is no single global waiting-list model.

Why Waiting Lists Should Not Be Used to Predict IPv4 Prices

It may be tempting to say:

More waiting = higher IPv4 prices.

The relationship is not that simple.

Waiting-list data can indicate qualified demand for limited registry-supplied resources.

But IPv4 market pricing can also be influenced by:

• available transfer inventory;

• block size;

• transaction structure;

• RIR region;

• address reputation;

• buyer urgency;

• seller expectations;

• broader economic conditions;

• routing history.

A large waiting list therefore does not translate directly into a specific market price.

Likewise, a declining queue does not automatically mean commercial IPv4 demand is falling.

Waiting-list statistics are best understood as resource-allocation data, not as a direct IPv4 pricing index.

Why IPv6 Does Not Make the Waiting Lists Meaningless

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

That does not mean every current IPv4 dependency disappears immediately.

Organizations may still need IPv4 for:

• customer connectivity;

• legacy applications;

• APIs;

• security allowlists;

• hosting;

• email;

• cloud infrastructure;

• devices or partners without complete IPv6 support.

A business can therefore be actively deploying IPv6 while still needing a limited amount of IPv4.

This helps explain why post-exhaustion IPv4 mechanisms remain relevant even as IPv6 adoption grows.

What Should Network Operators Do Instead of Relying on a Waiting List?

An IPv4 waiting list can be one option.

It should not be the entire address strategy.

Organizations should begin by understanding their actual requirement.

Audit Existing IPv4

Before sourcing additional addresses, determine whether current space is:

• allocated efficiently;

• documented;

• actively used;

• fragmented unnecessarily;

• recoverable from retired infrastructure.

Understand RIR Eligibility

Waiting-list eligibility differs by region.

Organizations should understand which mechanism actually applies to their resources and operations.

Plan for Transfers When Appropriate

If operational requirements exceed what a waiting list can reasonably supply, transfer mechanisms may be relevant.

Deploy IPv6

IPv6 can reduce long-term dependency on scarce IPv4.

Document Operational Dependencies

Know where IPv4 appears in:

• customer allowlists;

• VPNs;

• cloud systems;

• DNS;

• APIs;

• security systems;

• partner integrations.

NRS provides a broader operational checklist in How to Audit Your Company’s Internet Number Resources.

IPv4 Demand Is Increasingly a Planning Problem

One of the most useful lessons from 2026 data is that IPv4 demand should not be treated only as a procurement problem.

A company may ask:

How do we get another IPv4 block?

But the better questions include:

• How much do we actually need?

• How long do we need it?

• Which applications still require IPv4?

• Can existing resources be reclaimed?

• Can IPv6 reduce future requirements?

• Does our RIR offer a relevant allocation mechanism?

• Would a transfer be required?

• Can we document the resource correctly?

• How will we route and secure it?

• Who will control it five years from now?

These questions turn IPv4 management into infrastructure planning rather than simple address acquisition.

Accurate Records Matter More in a Recycled Address Environment

As more IPv4 space is recovered, returned and transferred, address blocks can pass through multiple organizational contexts during their lifetime.

That increases the importance of:

• current registry records;

• clear resource history;

• current contacts;

• documented routing authority;

• updated RPKI;

• accurate internal inventories.

A finite resource that changes hands repeatedly needs reliable records.

Otherwise, old organizational information can become disconnected from current operational reality.

This is where registry accuracy supports continuity.

Not because a registry describes every aspect of a running network, but because reliable coordination data helps independent operators understand the resources on which they rely.

What 2026 RIR Waiting-List Data Really Tells Us

The most useful interpretation of the data is not:

“IPv4 is running out.”

That happened years ago in the traditional free-pool sense.

The more useful conclusion is:

The post-exhaustion Internet is still actively managing demand for a finite IPv4 resource base.

The mechanisms now include:

• limited final pools;

• waiting lists;

• recovered address space;

• transfers;

• provider-based addressing;

• resource reclamation;

• IPv6.

In this environment, resource administration becomes increasingly important.

IPv4 availability is no longer only about allocation.

It is about the lifecycle of addresses that may be used, returned, recovered, transferred and deployed again.

Final Takeaway

2026 waiting-list data shows that demand for IPv4 did not disappear when the major free pools were exhausted.

In August 2026, the RIPE NCC still reported 757 LIRs waiting for limited IPv4 allocations, with the first LIR in the queue waiting 467 days.

ARIN, meanwhile, fulfilled 523 waiting-list requests across its January, April and July 2026 distributions.

But those numbers need context.

They do not represent total IPv4 demand.

They reflect different policy-defined mechanisms within different registry systems.

APNIC demonstrates the point clearly: it no longer operates an unmet-request waiting list, yet continues to ration limited IPv4 and provides other mechanisms for organizations requiring additional address space.

The broader conclusion is therefore:

IPv4 exhaustion did not end demand—it transformed IPv4 management from routine allocation into a combination of rationing, recovery, redistribution and long-term resource planning.

For network operators, the priority should not simply be obtaining addresses.

It should be understanding:

• which resources the organization already has;

• how efficiently they are used;

• which RIR rules apply;

• what other sourcing mechanisms exist;

• how registry records are maintained;

• how routing and RPKI remain aligned;

• and how IPv4 dependencies will be reduced or preserved over time.

The post-exhaustion Internet is increasingly a resource-lifecycle environment.

Good IPv4 management means planning for that entire lifecycle.