The Difference Between RIRs and IP Brokers in IPv4 Transfers

StephanieStephanie
difference-between-rir-ip-brokers-ipv4-transfer

• RIRs regulate IPv4 transfers under strict regional policies; brokers mediate and streamline transactions.

• IP leasing services like i.lease offer flexible, rapid access without full ownership transfers.

Introduction

The looming exhaustion of IPv4 addresses has turned these resources into highly traded assets. Two main pathways for organisations to acquire IPv4 space are via Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) or third-party IP brokers. An emerging alternative, i.lease, offers leasing rather than full ownership transfer, reshaping how businesses obtain IP space. This article examines how RIRs and IP brokers differ, highlights the advantages of leasing, and explores how i.lease fits into this evolving landscape.

Regional internet registries govern ownership transfers

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are the official authorities managing IPv4 address space within defined global regions. Organisations must comply with each RIR’s policies to initiate transfers. These policies include validating ownership, demonstrating justification for additional addresses, and meeting specific regional restrictions and fees.


Each RIR has its own nuances. Such as whilst AFRINIC prevents transfers to intra-RIR only, APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, and LACNIC all facilitate inter-RIR transfers under reciprocal, needs-based policies. The registry affirms the fact the seller is the legitimate owner of the IP addresses and makes sure that all applicable regulations are met before RIR-led transfers can take position. Each transfer involves documentation, justification of need, and processing fees, making the process thorough but sometimes slow.

Direct transactions: pros and cons

Some organisations choose to bypass brokers altogether and negotiate IP transfers directly. This avoids brokerage fees and provides full control over negotiation—but requires in-house expertise, time, and familiarity with complex RIR requirements.

An increasingly precious resource

IPv4 addresses applied to have been widely available, but as the Internet’s global infrastructure while growing promptly in the early 2000s, that number dropped. In 2011, when IPv4 addresses begun to feel more like things than freely available resources, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) presented over the final of its IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The shift started an IPv4 transfer market during which brokers and leasing platforms evolved into vital players in regulating supply and gratifying demand.

Regional Internet Registries: the guardians of allocation

The official body parts in the position of transferring and maintaining IPv4 address space within established geographic areas are regional internet registries. When it comes to transferring IPv4 address blocks, the five her primary source RIRs—APNIC (Asia Pacific), LACNIC (Latin America and the Caribbean), RIPE NCC (Europe, Middle East, Central Asia), AFRINIC (Africa), and ARIN (North America)—each enforce their own policies and procedures. When both parties are under the same RIR, as arises when two European companies transfer an address block within RIPE NCC, this is designated as an intra-RIR transfer.


On the flip side, inter-RIR transfers encompasses cross-registry transfers, such as those from ARIN to RIPE NCC, and demand that both RIRs support individuals and adhere to compatible policies. With solely the receiving RIR’s acceptance, intra-RIR transfers typically happen simpler and quicker. Inter-RIR transfers have more complicated and time-consuming since both source and destination registries have to perform verification, enforce documentation requirements, and guarantee that they adhere to local rules and regulations.Within ARIN, for instance, transfers require an Online account, proper organisational identifiers, signed agreements, processing fees and completion within specific windows of time.


Though thorough and secure, RIR transfers demand administrative effort, policy compliance, and in some cases justification of need. That level of complexity, fuelled by regional nuance and documentation, stimulates demand for intermediaries who can navigate the system more efficiently.

IP brokers: intermediaries simplifying complexity

IP brokers become go-betweens for buyers and sellers in the secondary IPv4 market. They raise the process collectively by directing transaction flow, connecting with RIRs, managing documentation, validating ownership, and negotiating terms. These mid-men offer expertise in navigating diverse regional policies, reducing the burden on organisations unfamiliar with RIR intricacies or those seeking to expedite the process.

“An IPv4 broker acts as an intermediary between buyers and sellers, ensuring a compliant, successful transaction every time.”

— Vincentas Grinius, IPXO Co-Founder

This kind of service accelerates transactions, mitigates regulatory risk and delivers peace of mind. nevertheless through the brokered route may on occasion limitation direct negotiation with the other party and comes at a cost, which typically ranges coming from 5 to 15% of the transaction. When deciding on this course, entities need to consider the trade-off between speed and autonomy.

Leasing IPv4: a flexible alternative

Leasing IPv4 address space has emerged as a nimble and cost-effective substitute to both outright transfer and lengthy RIR approval. In leasing, organisations gain temporary usage rights to an IPv4 block, without permanent ownership or registration. This model suits those needing flexibility, rapid deployment, or temporary burst capacity.


ARIN’s Chief Experience Officer John Sweeting notes that leasing can sidestep market delays or lengthy waiting lists. However, he cautions that leasing does not grant permanent registration or autonomy, and addresses must be returned once lease terms expire; misuse of leasing to justify new allocations under ARIN policy could trigger policy enforcement.


LARUS, a provider of IPv4 leasing services, advertises delivery within 48 hours of contract, payment and authorisation letter. Their approach ensures agility for networks needing fast allocation without RIR membership or fees.

A shortage that created a market

The estimated value during the Internet wasn’t expected by the people who developed it when it was first conceived. With its 32-bit address space, the IPv4 protocol delivered in 4.3 billion distinguished addresses. This seemed sufficient at the time.Yet the boom of mobile devices, broadband, and cloud computing quickly consumed this supply. By 2011, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) had allocated its final blocks to the five Regional Internet Registries. Scarcity set in, and what had once been free infrastructure became a tradable asset.


In response, organisations began looking for ways to secure IPv4 space for their networks. This gave rise to two distinct routes: going directly through RIRs under strict regional policies, or using brokers to simplify and speed up the process. More recently, leasing models such as i.lease have introduced a third option, where companies can access addresses on demand without buying them outright.

The authority of Regional Internet Registries

North America is protected by ARIN, Europe and parts of Central Asia due to RIPE NCC, Asia Pacific with APNIC, Latin America and the Caribbean with LACNIC, and Africa due to AFRINIC. The main aim of all registry services, spite of their variances in strategy, is to verify that IPv4 allocations are true to themselves effectively registered, and in accordance with the local laws (arin.net). An organization must go through an intra-RIR method if it seeks to transfer IPv4 addresses within just one region.This typically involves verifying the current holder’s rights, approving the transfer request, and sometimes justifying the need for additional space.


If the transfer crosses borders—for example from ARIN to RIPE—then both RIRs must approve the transaction. These inter-RIR transfers are slower and involve more documentation (prefixbroker.com).


The advantage of working directly with an RIR is that the process is secure and results in definitive ownership recorded in the registry’s database. The drawback is time. Processing can take weeks or months, and for organisations needing addresses quickly, the bureaucracy may feel like an obstacle.

Brokers as market facilitators

This is where brokers have carved out a role. By acting as go-betweens, IPv4 brokers help buyers and sellers navigate the complex global landscape of registry policies. On behalf of their clients, brokers manage negotiations, prepare paperwork, and coordinate with RIRs — reducing the risk of errors or rejected applications.

“The job of a broker is to ensure a successful transaction every time, by validating ownership and navigating complex policy requirements.”

— ipxo.com

Beyond facilitating transfers, brokers typically:

  • Validate IP ownership and ensure legitimate registry records before submission.
  • Prepare and manage documentation required by RIRs across multiple jurisdictions.
  • Negotiate deal terms between buyer and seller, maintaining neutrality and compliance.
  • Liaise directly with RIRs, ensuring each step aligns with regional transfer policies.
  • Pre-screen IP blocks to check for blacklisting or previous abuse associations.
  • Coordinate escrow and payment processes to safeguard both parties.
  • Charge brokerage fees, usually between 5–15% of the deal value, depending on block size and complexity.

Leasing reshapes the landscape

While RIRs and brokers focus on ownership transfers, IPv4 leasing takes a different route — offering access without the need to buy. Businesses can rent address space for a defined term, gaining flexibility and speed while avoiding long approval cycles.

i.lease stands out as a full-service platform that simplifies the entire leasing process:

  • Contracts signed and approved within days
  • Pre-vetted, clean IPs to avoid blacklist or abuse issues
  • Built-in abuse management and multilingual support
  • No RIR membership required

This model suits companies needing fast or temporary expansion — such as start-ups, hosting providers, or seasonal content networks. As IPv4 prices continue rising, leasing offers a cost-effective bridge until IPv6 adoption becomes widespread.

Expert perspectives

Ioana Livadariu of APNIC has noted that the IPv4 transfer market is “carefully monitored” but still heavily influenced by intermediaries who manage the practicalities of deal-making (blog.apnic.net). Researchers such as Vasileios Giotsas have highlighted the problem of address reputation, finding that a significant portion of transferred blocks were already blocklisted, underlining the importance of using trusted brokers or platforms to vet addresses (ipxo.com).


These insights reinforce the idea that while RIRs provide legitimacy, the marketplace requires additional layers of assurance and flexibility. Leasing services, including i.lease, are effectively responding to this gap by combining speed with quality control.

The choice businesses face

Every organisation must decide which approach suits its strategy. If permanence is essential, RIR-led transfers remain the gold standard. They ensure ownership is fully recognised and cannot be disputed. If speed and convenience matter more, brokers provide professional support that shortens the timeline and reduces administrative headaches. For those prioritising flexibility and cost control, leasing via platforms like i.lease offers an attractive third way.


None of these paths is universally superior. They coexist because business needs vary. A multinational telecom operator planning for decades of service continuity will likely prefer secure ownership. A digital media firm launching a short-term platform may instead lease what it needs for six months. The key lies in aligning the method with operational goals.

Looking ahead

The long-term solution to IPv4 exhaustion is of course IPv6. Nevertheless, adoption has been uneven, and IPv4 remains extensively utilized in many networks. The necessity for IPv4 leases and transfers will not end until IPv6 is implemented roughly by everyone. knowing the presence of services like i.lease, leasing could possibly continue to be valuable in a dual-stack the natural world where IPv4 capacity will continue to be needed in combination with IPv6.

Trusted IPv4 Leasing for Business Growth

Get enterprise-grade IPv4 space quickly, with seamless deployment and end-to-end management.

Get Started with i.lease

FAQs

What distinguishes intra-RIR transfers from inter-RIR transfers?

An intra-RIR transfer occurs within a single registry’s region, requiring approval only from that registry. An inter-RIR transfer moves addresses between two registries, requiring both to approve.

Why use a broker rather than apply directly through an RIR?

Brokers simplify complex processes, reduce administrative burden, and help avoid mistakes. They also provide market knowledge and reputational screening of IP blocks.

How does i.lease differ from brokers?

i.lease does not arrange ownership transfers. Instead, it offers temporary leasing of IPv4 addresses with fast provisioning and clean reputational checks.

Is leasing cheaper than buying?

For short-term needs, leasing is almost always more economical. Buying provides permanent ownership, but costs have risen significantly in recent years.

Will IPv6 make all of this irrelevant?

Eventually IPv6 should reduce demand for IPv4, but the transition is slow. Until adoption becomes universal, IPv4 transfers and leasing will remain essential.

相关文章

ipv4-allocation

大多数企业为何会意外面临 IPv4 地址分配失败的风险

IPv4 稀缺性已被广泛理解。许多企业仍然低估的是:地址资源如何被治理和维护所带来的连续性风险。 企业往往在持续使用 IPv4 资源的同时,并没有完全看清支撑这些分配的连续性条件。 对租赁、转让和供应商管理型基础设施的依赖不断增加,正在将 IPv4地址分配 重塑为一个长期治理问题。 IPv4地址分配已悄然成为连续性问题 对许多企业 IT 团队来说,IPv4 地址看起来仍然在运营上保持稳定。 应用程序仍然可以访问。云平台继续扩展。连接服务供应商在没有明显中断的情况下提供服务。从外部看,互联网似乎仍像过去一样运行。 然而,在这种运营稳定性之下,IPv4地址分配的结构已经发生了根本变化。 可自由分配的 IPv4 空间耗尽早已不是新闻。American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 于 2015 年耗尽其可用 IPv4 池,而 RIPE NCC 于 2019 年随后耗尽。(arin.net)(ripe.net) 取代旧分配环境的,是一个围绕以下内容建立的更分层运营模式: 转让 租赁 供应商管理型地址 回收 二级分配安排 对许多组织来说,这些变化是逐渐发生的,因此其背后连续性假设的转变很大程度上没有被注意到。因此,企业现在面临的并不只是地址稀缺,而是越来越暴露于 IPv4地址分配失败风险 ——也就是连续性、可携带性或长期运营灵活性变得比预期更不确定的情况。 问题通常是可见性,而不是即时短缺 这个问题仍然被低估的原因之一,是大多数企业并不会把 IPv4 scarcity 体验成即时宕机问题。基础设施仍在运行。 相反,风险通常会在转型时刻浮现: 云迁移 供应商整合并购 区域扩展 基础设施重组 合规驱动的迁移 在这些情况下,组织有时会发现,运营使用和连续性可见性并不是同一回事。企业可能已经在生产环境中积极使用 IPv4 资源多年,却对以下方面了解有限: 分配来源 注册机构关系 转让历史 可携带性条件 上游依赖 续期风险暴露 这并不一定表示运营实践不佳。现代基础设施环境随着时间推移变得越来越抽象。云采用和软件定义基础设施简化了部署,但也减少了企业与支撑互联网号码资源的治理层之间的直接互动。 IPv4地址分配已从采购演变为管理责任 过去,组织通常把IPv4地址分配视为直接的运营需求。额外地址空间往往可以通过 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)Read more Related Posts Risques liés au renouvellement d’IPv4 : quand le manque de responsabilisation se transforme en trahison du code en cours d’exécution La plupart des entreprises entrent sur le marché IPv4 avec un objectif simple. Elles ont besoin d’adresses. Peut-être en ont-elles Read more i.lease 存在的意义:IPv4 连续性并非普通的接入方式 大多数企业进入 IPv4 市场时,目标都很简单。 它们需要地址。 也许是用于托管。 也许是用于 VPN 基础设施。 也许是用于云服务、SaaS 平台、电信扩展、电子邮件系统、网络安全工具,或面向客户的应用程序。 于是,它们开始寻找 IPv4 供应商。 它们比较价格,检查地址块大小,询问交付速度,寻找能够提供所需地址数量的卖方、经纪商或租赁平台。 这种做法可以理解。 但它并不完整。 因为 IPv4 访问不只是供应问题。 它是一个连续性问题。 Read more Why most enterprises are accidentally exposed to IPv4 allocation failure risk IPv4 scarcity is widely understood. What many enterprises still underestimate is the continuity risk surrounding how address resources are governed Read more .related-post {} .related-post .post-list { text-align: left; } .related-post .post-list .item { margin: 5px; padding: 10px; } .related-post .headline { font-size: 18px !important; color: #999999 !important; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_thumb { max-height: 220px; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_title { font-size: 16px; color: #3f3f3f; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; text-decoration: none; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_excerpt { font-size: 13px; color: #3f3f3f; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; text-decoration: none; } @media only screen and (min-width: 1024px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 30%; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1023px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 90%; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 767px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 90%; } }

Running Code Primacy

运行代码优先性:为什么 IPv4 租约应该以运行证明来评判

IPv4 租赁通常始于一个简单的问题: 这个供应商能不能给我们这些地址? 但对于依赖 IPv4 来支持托管、VPN、SaaS、云、电信、安全、电子邮件投递或面向客户平台的企业来说,这个问题还不够。 更好的问题是: 这个 IPv4 结构能否证明它在运营上可行? 这正是 Running-Code Primacy 重要的地方。 Running-Code Primacy 意味着,真实运行中的运营现实,应该优先于机构语言、销售说法、流程上的安心感或抽象承诺。在 IPv4 地址市场中,企业不应只通过价格、地址块大小或精美的销售页面来判断 IPv4 供应商。企业应该通过证据来判断:该地址空间是否可以路由、续期、记录、支持,并在生产环境中保持稳定。 对 i.lease 来说,商业启示很直接: IPv4 访问应该通过运营证明来评估,而不只是纸面上的可用性。 什么是 Running-Code Primacy? Running-Code Primacy 是一种理念,认为互联网治理和资源协调应始终以正在运行的网络为基础。 互联网工程传统长期重视实际实现,而不是理论设计。Running-Code Primacy 背后的原则主张,号码资源协调应通过运行中网络的技术需求来解释,而不是通过广泛的机构权威来解释。 对于 IPv4 地址市场,这一原则可以转化为商业语言: 不要只依赖说法。要寻找证明。 供应商可能会说 IPv4 地址块可用。但它能否支持路由?能否提供文件?能否说明来源控制?能否处理续期?当信誉或滥用问题出现时,它能否回应?部署之后,它能否保持客户网络稳定? Running-Code Primacy 并不意味着忽略合同、记录或治理。这些仍然重要。它意味着最终测试应该是运营现实。 如果一个 IPv4 安排无法支持正在运行的网络,那就还不够。 为什么 IPv4 买家和租户应该重视 IPv4 不只是基础设施预算中的一个项目。 对许多企业来说,IPv4 支撑着真实系统: 托管平台 云服务 VPN 网关 SaaS 应用 企业访问控制 电子邮件基础设施 电信系统 安全工具 面向客户的网站 API 端点 监控系统Read more Related Posts Risques liés au renouvellement d’IPv4 : quand le manque de responsabilisation se transforme en trahison du code en cours d’exécution La plupart des entreprises entrent sur le marché IPv4 avec un objectif simple. Elles ont besoin d’adresses. Peut-être en ont-elles Read more 大多数企业为何会意外面临 IPv4 地址分配失败的风险 IPv4 稀缺性已被广泛理解。许多企业仍然低估的是:地址资源如何被治理和维护所带来的连续性风险。 企业往往在持续使用 IPv4 资源的同时,并没有完全看清支撑这些分配的连续性条件。 对租赁、转让和供应商管理型基础设施的依赖不断增加,正在将 IPv4地址分配 重塑为一个长期治理问题。 IPv4地址分配已悄然成为连续性问题 对许多企业 IT 团队来说,IPv4 地址看起来仍然在运营上保持稳定。 应用程序仍然可以访问。云平台继续扩展。连接服务供应商在没有明显中断的情况下提供服务。从外部看,互联网似乎仍像过去一样运行。 然而,在这种运营稳定性之下,IPv4地址分配的结构已经发生了根本变化。 可自由分配的 IPv4 空间耗尽早已不是新闻。American Registry for Read more Why i.lease Exists: IPv4 Continuity Is Not Commodity Access Most businesses enter the IPv4 market with a simple goal. They need addresses. Maybe they need them for hosting.Maybe they Read more .related-post {} .related-post .post-list { text-align: left; } .related-post .post-list .item { margin: 5px; padding: 10px; } .related-post .headline { font-size: 18px !important; color: #999999 !important; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_thumb { max-height: 220px; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_title { font-size: 16px; color: #3f3f3f; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; text-decoration: none; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_excerpt { font-size: 13px; color: #3f3f3f; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; text-decoration: none; } @media only screen and (min-width: 1024px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 30%; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1023px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 90%; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 767px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 90%; } }

IPv4 Poverty Penalty

IPv4 贫困惩罚:为什么小型网络需要支付更多费用

IPv4 访问在纸面上可能看起来是一样的。 相同的注册机构表格。相同的转让规则。相同的供应商合同。相同的合规语言。相同的续期流程。 但相同的文件,并不总是带来相同的结果。 对于大型运营商来说,IPv4 摩擦可能是可以管理的。他们可能拥有法律团队、政策人员、网络工程师、合规支持、资本储备,以及足够多的客户来把延迟成本分摊到更大的业务规模中。 但对于较小的运营商来说,同样的摩擦可能变得危险。 IPv4 转让延迟可能拖慢扩张。文件问题可能阻碍部署。续期问题可能带来面向客户的风险。薄弱的供应商链条可能迫使紧急迁移。注册机构或政策争议可能消耗企业无法承受的资金。 这就是 IPv4 访问中 贫困惩罚 的实际含义:更贫困、更小型或利润率更薄的运营商,往往会为同样的不确定性付出更高代价,因为它们吸收延迟、流程和自由裁量风险的能力更弱。 危险不只是 IPv4 的价格。 危险在于它周围隐藏的成本。 什么是 IPv4 贫困惩罚? IPv4 贫困惩罚,是指较小型运营商在 IPv4 访问受到流程、延迟、不确定性、文件负担、供应商链条薄弱或注册层风险影响时所面对的隐藏成本。 这并不意味着小企业总是支付更高的每 IP 标价。有时会,有时不会。 更深层的问题是,较小型运营商往往支付更多间接成本。 它们没有足够资本来承受延迟。 它们没有足够人员来处理文件。 它们与供应商谈判的能力较弱。 如果出现争议,它们的法律承受能力较低。 如果地址块无法使用,它们的备用选择更少。 如果部署延迟,它们可能更快失去客户。 大型运营商可以把 IPv4 摩擦视为行政上的不便。较小型运营商却可能把同样的摩擦体验为对增长、服务交付或生存的直接威胁。 这就是为什么贫困惩罚不只是一个社会性说法。在 IPv4 访问中,它会变成运营现实。 为什么相同规则会产生不平等风险 许多系统声称自己是平等的,因为相同规则适用于所有人。 但在商业基础设施中,相同规则仍然可能产生不平等风险。 大型网络可能拥有了解转让要求的政策团队。较小型 ISP 可能只有一名工程师同时处理路由、客户支持、账单和合规。 云平台可能可以承受数周延迟,因为它有资本储备和备用容量。较小型托管服务商如果本月无法开始部署,可能就会失去客户。 跨国买家可能可以谈判更强的条款。较小型买家可能因为选择较少,而接受薄弱的供应商条件。 规则可能相同。 负担并不相同。 这就是为什么可见的 IPv4 价格只是实际成本的一部分。对小型企业来说,不确定性的隐藏成本可能比月租费或购买价差更大。 小型网络承担的隐藏成本 贫困惩罚会通过一些容易被忽视、直到直接冲击业务时才显现的成本出现。 1. 合规成本 较小型运营商可能需要准备文件、解释使用场景、验证记录、更新联系人、回应供应商问题,或满足转让要求,但它们通常没有专门的合规团队。 2. 延迟成本 延迟可能阻止新客户上线、推迟服务器部署、拖慢区域扩张,或阻碍服务按时上线。 3. 法律成本 如果出现争议,大型运营商可能可以吸收法律审查成本。较小型运营商可能因为成本太高而避免维护自身立场。 4. 工程成本 薄弱的供应商文件、不清晰的路由授权,或突然更换 IP,都可能消耗小团队难以轻易承担的工程时间。Read more Related Posts Por qué la mayoría de las empresas están expuestas accidentalmente al riesgo de fallo en la asignación de IPv4 La escasez de IPv4 es ampliamente comprendida. Lo que muchas empresas aún subestiman es el riesgo de continuidad relacionado con Read more Pourquoi la plupart des entreprises sont exposées accidentellement au risque d’échec d’attribution d’adresse IPv4 La rareté de l’IPv4 est largement comprise. Ce que de nombreuses entreprises sous-estiment encore, c’est le risque de continuité lié Read more i.lease 存在的意义:IPv4 连续性并非普通的接入方式 大多数企业进入 IPv4 市场时,目标都很简单。 它们需要地址。 也许是用于托管。 也许是用于 VPN 基础设施。 也许是用于云服务、SaaS 平台、电信扩展、电子邮件系统、网络安全工具,或面向客户的应用程序。 于是,它们开始寻找 IPv4 供应商。 它们比较价格,检查地址块大小,询问交付速度,寻找能够提供所需地址数量的卖方、经纪商或租赁平台。 这种做法可以理解。 但它并不完整。 因为 IPv4 访问不只是供应问题。 它是一个连续性问题。 Read more .related-post {} .related-post .post-list { text-align: left; } .related-post .post-list .item { margin: 5px; padding: 10px; } .related-post .headline { font-size: 18px !important; color: #999999 !important; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_thumb { max-height: 220px; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_title { font-size: 16px; color: #3f3f3f; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; text-decoration: none; } .related-post .post-list .item .post_excerpt { font-size: 13px; color: #3f3f3f; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; text-decoration: none; } @media only screen and (min-width: 1024px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 30%; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1023px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 90%; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 767px) { .related-post .post-list .item { width: 90%; } }