The article you're responding to is a dramatic demonstration that it has happened: Amazon's IPs would not be worth $4.5B if we hadn't run out. It requires us all to ration a resource (namely numbers) that should be near-infinite and essentially free.
> It requires us all to ration a resource (namely numbers) that should be near-infinite and essentially free.
There can only be ~4.3 billion IPv4 addresses, which means that mathematically IP addresses are severely limited - you can't assign even one single globally routable IPv4 address per human. That's why we have NAT and its evolution CGNAT in the first place.
Back when the Internet was conceived, as a network of militaries, universities and large corporations, it was in no way foreseeable just how much resources humanity would need - and it was thought that the system would adapt.
However we got layers upon layers of closed-source middleboxes and everything ossified as a result.
But from the perspective of anyone that isn't a networking expert, there is no real problem, things just work and there are no real issues. Networking folks found ways to extend the runway and all other tech people see is the occasional article like this and then they forget about it again five minutes later. I don't even see the effects of the cost of an IP anywhere. I guess it's there, but I don't notice. No regular person even knows what ipv6 is.
The article you're responding to is a dramatic demonstration that it has happened: Amazon's IPs would not be worth $4.5B if we hadn't run out. It requires us all to ration a resource (namely numbers) that should be near-infinite and essentially free.