AFAICT the risk/reward for this change (and others along the same line) is poor, because like it or not, as a factual matter, there are many tens or hundreds of millions of notionally "open source" devices that will never get an updated Linux/BSD/... kernel. Most of them are probably Android phones but there is also a giant tail of consumer routers, EOL'd network equipment, etc. A lot of this stuff will stay in use until total HW failure, which may be a decade, two decades or more.
There are of course also many closed-source products that will never get a TCP/IP stack update. I haven't tested it but I doubt Win7 will ever be able to reach 0.1.2.3 over the public internet. Even if that's a bogus example, you get the idea: millions of dollars worth of old closed source gear out there where it's impossible for the owner to patch the TCP/IP stack.
As a result, to prevent strange connectivity problems on 0.X% of their connections, almost everyone will pay (and, if needed, significantly bid up) the ~$20/yr "normal" IPv4 address cost to get an existing "non-reclaimed" IPv4 address instead of taking a gamble on one of these new ones that will definitely have problems with many other hosts. In short I don't see a voluntary rational buyer or user until the IPv4 market rises 10X+ and probably more like 100X+; until then they seem like more of a liability than an asset given how annoyingly long it will take to retire (or somehow otherwise ensure that you'll never need to talk with) non-updatable IPv4 hosts.
Not that I like this, or am trying to defend or justify it, but I think it is an accurate assessment.
TLDR: pretty much everyone will actively avoid these addrs given that millions of hosts will never be able to reach them.
There are of course also many closed-source products that will never get a TCP/IP stack update. I haven't tested it but I doubt Win7 will ever be able to reach 0.1.2.3 over the public internet. Even if that's a bogus example, you get the idea: millions of dollars worth of old closed source gear out there where it's impossible for the owner to patch the TCP/IP stack.
As a result, to prevent strange connectivity problems on 0.X% of their connections, almost everyone will pay (and, if needed, significantly bid up) the ~$20/yr "normal" IPv4 address cost to get an existing "non-reclaimed" IPv4 address instead of taking a gamble on one of these new ones that will definitely have problems with many other hosts. In short I don't see a voluntary rational buyer or user until the IPv4 market rises 10X+ and probably more like 100X+; until then they seem like more of a liability than an asset given how annoyingly long it will take to retire (or somehow otherwise ensure that you'll never need to talk with) non-updatable IPv4 hosts.
Not that I like this, or am trying to defend or justify it, but I think it is an accurate assessment.
TLDR: pretty much everyone will actively avoid these addrs given that millions of hosts will never be able to reach them.