Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IPv4 Address Use In 2008

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the act-now-while-supplies-last dept.

Communications 258

An anonymous reader writes "The world used 197 million new IPv4 addresses in 2008, leaving 926 million addresses still available. The US remains the biggest user of new addresses, but China is catching up quickly. Quoting Ars Technica: 'A possible explanation could be that the big player(s) in some countries are executing a "run on the bank" and trying to get IPv4 addresses while the getting is good, while those in other countries are working on more NAT (Network Address Translation) and other address conservation techniques in anticipation of the depletion of the IPv4 address reserves a few years from now. In both cases, adding some IPv6 to the mix would be helpful. Even though last year the number of IPv6 addresses given out increased by almost a factor eight over 2007, the total amount of IPv6 address space in use is just 0.027 percent.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

there's plenty of address space (-1, Offtopic)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308741)

Why can't we all just get along?

(better than Frist Post!)

Re:there's plenty of address space (4, Insightful)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308797)

The ISPs don't care if the IPv4 addresses run out. They like it because then they'll be able to start charging extra for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses whereas they've been just giving them out for free. NAT also cuts their traffic costs because it keeps customers from running servers.

Re:there's plenty of address space (5, Interesting)

sigipickl (595932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309097)

I don't know which ISP's or upstream providers you are dealing with, but in the last 2 years, every DS1/3 circuit I have ordered required quite a bit of justification for anything more than 5 IPv4 addresses. No, I have not had to pay extra for addresses yet, but I have been told by AT&T and others that /24 blocks are basically impossible to get on anything less than DS3's nowadays.

The last time I did get a /24 or larger block of IPv4 addresses was 3 years ago on a 6mbit bundle of T1's. That was a /23 for a hospital network of 5000+ internal hosts. At last check, we were using about 200 of our allotted 500+ addresses. A bit wasteful.

I remember getting T1's in the mid-to-late 90's, and there were no questions asked- you just got a /24.

Re:there's plenty of address space (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309391)

Sounds like a lot (maybe half?) of allocated addresses are not in use. I wonder how the cost of turning /23s into /24s compares with going IPV6 everywhere?

Re:there's plenty of address space (1, Troll)

spudnic (32107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309405)

Doesn't this just prove the point? Do you really want 5000+ internal hosts on a hospital network to be directly accessible from the Internet?

It seems in your case you should only require routeable addresses for your external servers, firewall, vpn, etc. and let everything else live on the inside.

So if you're ordering up all of these circuits please do us all a favor and don't even ask for more addresses than you actually need. Thank you very much.

Re:there's plenty of address space (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309693)

NAT is fine for a typical workstation now but I think it is a bad idea to build assumptions about the way applications work into network architecture.

Assumptions are fine (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309937)

It's perfectly fine to make assumptions, in fact it's part of designing stuff. You can't know everything in advance.

You WILL have to make assumptions anyway - after all you aren't going to ask for 2 billion IP addresses for the hospital. Even if someone argues that in the future some applications may require machines to have thousands of IP addresses, but as a designer you are going to say "Even if that's the case, a hospital is unlikely to want that app, or by that time, the hospital and the world would have gone to IPv6".

How good the assumptions are, shows you how good (or lucky ;) ) the designer was.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that most computers in the hospital should never need to have outsiders able to connect directly to them.

This may not be true for universities, but it is likely to be even more true for banks - only a very few ways in and out.

Many universities have an open campus, and outsiders can walk to any building and try to enter them, and the buildings themselves are designed with multiple entry points. Banks in contrast are desigend to have just a few entry points (that's why the crooks often make their own entry points ;) ).

Re:there's plenty of address space (5, Insightful)

aaron.axvig (1238422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309895)

Why would you use addressing to keep un-authorized traffic from your computers. That is what a firewall is for. The whole NAT thing is really frustrating if you are trying to do any push application, VPN, video-conferencing...etc. Yes there are ways to cope, but why port forward when you could open ports in a firewall?

Re:there's plenty of address space (1)

sigipickl (595932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309981)

No, 5000+ hosts do not need to be *directly* accessible from the internet, but there are an exponentially growing number of devices and information stores that need to be accessed by vendors and business partners (a good example is the change to digital diagnostic imaging by many hospitals over the last few years- those images have to move from hospital to hospital and hospital to clinic somehow). While solutions like Citrix or SSL VPNs are solving many of these issues, often direct VPN access is the only solution. With the VPNs, classic LAN-to-LAN tunnels within NAT space (RFC 1918) are not only prone to conflicts, but are complex to secure. Landing VPNs on routeable addresses outside the firewall (then pin-holing) is most often the only logical choice.

In the specific hospital case above (and this problem exists in many more industries besides healthcare, I'm sure, but healthcare technology is my area of experience)- based on the growth of connected devices, I will be out of IPv4 addresses in about 2 years. Maybe I was a bit loose with my 'wasteful' comment above- but in hindsight I am glad I hoarded when I did. Those remaining 300 routeable addresses are becoming precious. The days of handing out large IPv4 blocks are over as far as ISP's see it, so do I start hoarding more IPv4 addresses now? Sadly, I will probably have to, even if I am charged a nominal fee; it will most likely be cheaper than implementing IPv6, at least in today's skill-set market.

Re:there's plenty of address space (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309989)

I'm moving an installation from telco-owned to a carrier neutral facility (Equinix). I was able to get a /20 without a problem (although justification was necessary). Justification is ALWAYS necessary with ARIN, as they're strict with the IP space (as they should be).

Re:there's plenty of address space (1)

HTRednek (793937) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309757)

You apparently don't run any servers either. Just because someone uses NAT does not mean they cannot run a server. If you have a web server in your home and your ISP assigns you a public IP address, your modem (DSL) or modem and router (Most Cable) simply utilizes PORT FORWARDING. If its a standard web server, you simply direct port 80 to the internal NAT address of your server (ie 192.168.0.100, or 10.0.0.10, or whatever...)and voila. FTP? Use 20/21. Not too complicated.

Re:there's plenty of address space (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309783)

Try running more than one HTTPS server behind a single external address and see how wonderful you think NAT is then.

ipv6 increases by a factor of almost 8. (5, Funny)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308749)

great, so now we're at 8 IPv6 sites, all of which are tunnel brokers!

Re:ipv6 increases by a factor of almost 8. (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309021)

great, so now we're at 8 IPv6 sites, all of which are tunnel brokers!

Which, ironically, doesn't work well with NAT. That'll play out nicely when we're out of IPv4 addresses.

How many here think ISPs will try to use NAT to get around IPv4 exhaustion, effectively killing the very brokers we're trying to use as a means to avoid the very same problem?

Re:ipv6 increases by a factor of almost 8. (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309209)

When the crunch comes, any ISP that isn't batshit insane will be deploying native IPv6 alongside their NAT.

Re:ipv6 increases by a factor of almost 8. (4, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309261)

What ISP isn't batshit insane in the US?

Re:ipv6 increases by a factor of almost 8. (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309531)

I'll tell you when I post from said ISP.

Re:ipv6 increases by a factor of almost 8. (1)

skifun20 (1443925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309611)

Airlogic Internet Services! I'm part of them! and we rock. we provide the best service we can and deal with our customers problems. only problem we have is that we only service places where you cant get crapcast and at&t because they don't want to spend the money to run cable to the sticks. :) honestly I cant wait for IPv6 I'm kinda tired of having to ask the boss for more ip's when I want to put up a new game server in the basement of our COLO. Hurray 250Mbs fiber connection WOOT! ;)

Re:ipv6 increases by a factor of almost 8. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309733)

Wow.
A whole 250Mbps connection.
Color me impressed.

At my last job I had 2x1Gbps, 4x100Mbps, 1x30Mbps (for our silly Canadian office) and roughly 50 dedicated servers located with server providers to use as a cheap CDN.

We kept game servers, file servers (legal and illegal kinds) running constantly, and every IP block we got from our ISP was a /24.

That wasn't even a tech startup, but a marketing startup.
Then again, I have 100/10 (soon to be 100/100) fiber to my apartment, with my downstream being guaranteed to be AT LEAST 60Mbps (so no, no "up to" clause -- if I find myself getting less than 60Mbps to measuring servers within my country, I get a full refund).
That costs me 30 bucks per month, and other parts of my country have better pipes for less.

Tell me again how awesome you are, heh.

Obama has the solution. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26308769)

I sat naked on the bench in the health club locker room, staring at the tiles on the floor between my feet, but really looking at nothing. I was waiting for Barack to decide to come up ant talk to me. He was this muscular middle-age nigger who frequented the club and had ruined my life in the last few weeks. I was ordered to sit naked on the bench without a towel or anything to cover my nakedness. I had to keep my legs spread and my cock and balls visible for the anyone In the locker room who wanted a look. I knew instantly that it had been a mistake to sign up at the inner city health club which was eighty percent black, but It was near my house and cheap which was even more important.

The harassment had started on my first visit. Dark skinned, muscular senate aides bouncing around the locker room with their huge dicks and pendulous sacks of balls swinging, high fiving each other and laughing and rapping, and there I was, this moderately built white guy of thirty two.

I will never forget coming back from the shower and one chocolate skinned thug of about eighteen let out a "weeeeeeeow" kind of sound and then said very loudly to me, loudly enough for all his pals to hear, "White man, how the hell can you fuck wit such a small dick?" They all roared with laughter and I turned bright red. Before I left that first time, I med Barack. He eased up to me while I was packing my gym bag. He is one good looking darkie, I will say that for him. He flashed me a big white toothed smile and said he hoped I wasn't thinking of quitting the club. He said he was friends with the manager and they had my address and shit, and it would be really unfortunate if I decided to quit. Then he laid one large basketball player sized hand on my shoulder and said that he would see me at the same time the next day.

Well, that's how it started. It got worse each time I went to the club. Barack and the other niggers got me to get towels for them, had me scrub their backs in the shower, even made me pick their dirty stinking jock straps up off the floor. They sent their filthy jocks and socks home with me to wash for them.

Now let me state here once and for all, that I am in no way at all gay. I don't think I ever even had a gay thought. So all of this really repulsed me. They would brush up against me so their big fat black dicks rubbed my body. They would make constant jokes about me being a faggot.

So I had it out with Barack. I told him I was a single parent with a thirteen year old daughter and in no way gay, and I wanted to quit the club. That mention of my daughter was the biggest mistake of my life. Barack demanded to see a photo of her. Her name is Crissy. After that, all they talked about was "Crissy the Cunt" in the locker room.

"Some congressman probably shoving his dick in her right now while you is at da club." They would say things like that. Barack would ask, "Do you suppose she had ever sucked black dick?" I told them she was totally innocent, and they should keep their foul mouths to themselves. They beat the shit out of me.

I didn't go to the club for a week. All the windows were broken on my car, and my newspaper was stolen, and somebody pissed all over our door. I received a package at work, and when I opened it, there was a pile of shit in a box. I was going nuts with anguish. I thought of going to the police, but I knew I would face even worse if I did. So I went back to the club. That was two months ago. A lot had happened in those two months.

Now I sat waiting for Barack to speak with me. He walked up, stark naked. The first thing I saw were his huge brown feet next to me. I looked up at his long muscular legs. How could I miss the seven inch flaccid dick, thick as a flashlight and the ball sack that looked like it had oranges in it. It was fucking obscene. His stomach was hard and tight. His ass was one of those round tight nigger bubble butts. His chest well defined with large nipples. He had a killer smile, thick nigger lips, and dark flashing eyes that often looked drugged.

"So, my man, how's that little dick of yours hangin'?"

I spread my legs wider so he could see my pathetic shriveled white prick and small ball sack. If I didn't keep myself on display for them at all times, they would have a wet towel snapping session where my scrotum was the target. It hurt like hell and was totally humiliating.

"So, bro, is everything set up for tomorrow?" He stood close to me...so close that his huge flaccid hunk of fuck meat brushed my shoulder. His dick was so huge, it was just fucking obscene, and that was in its flaccid state. He had not showered yet, and his body reeked of the nigger stink of his workout.

"Please. Please don't do this. I know I agreed, but that was after you had beaten me almost senseless. Please, isn't there some other way?"

He lifted one leg and put his foot on the bench next to me. His gigantic balls swung back and forth in their fleshy sack.

"Dere is no other fucking way, man. You don't wanna even think of what we gonna do to you next time you disobeys us. Dere is no other way. Now it so happens dat I needs me a new girlfriend, and your pretty little daughter fills da bill."

I felt my stomach turn over. I tried to relax, to breath deeply, but I felt like I was choking. This president elect nigger thug was talking about my daughter. My little Crissy. My thirteen year old angel. He had announced to me that he wanted her to become his girlfriend! Jesus Christ!

At first I had bluntly refused, letting my anger and disgust show. All the niggers in the club gathered around me, about fifteen of them, and Barack announced that I was racially prejudiced and didn't want him dating his white daughter. They started to slap and punch me.

"It's not that. Honest to God, I swear, it's not that you are black. It's that she is only thirteen. She's my innocent baby!"

Barack roared with laughter. "Any bitch of thirteen is totally ready for dick! She probably sucking da boys at school every day anyway by now." He looked at the photo of her which he had taken from me. "Yeah, she got real cocksucker lips, she shore do!"

"Oh God no, she's just a baby." I was crying in front of all of them.

"No, daddy, you gots it wrong. She is a babe...not a baby. Dat pretty little pussy is ready for some nigger popping!" Half the niggers surrounding me were getting hard ons, and I don't think there there was one under eight and a half inches.

For weeks I had argued, begged, pleaded, tried to bargain with Barack, but he only wanted one thing. My daughter's virgin pussy. Once I stood up to them and told them I would go to the police. They had dragged me naked and screaming into the health club bathroom and forced me to eat turds out of the toilet bowl. I was sick for two days. The next time I went to the club, Barack had made me suck his dick. That was the first time I saw it erect. Over twelve inches of throbbing leaking nigger cock. I had a panic attack and literally tried to run out of the club. They held me down on a bench and Barack fed me his black fuck meat. His balls almost suffocated me. His dick choked me. He even made me suck his ass. What could I do? I agreed to let them have my daughter. I know, I am an awful man. A sinner. It is unforgivable, but I am scared out of my wits.

"So, tomorrow, I comes over to yo house dressed up real good. You introduce me to yo bitch daughter. Now when I sees her, dis is how I wants her dressed. A very tight tee shirt dat says printed on it, "Obama" She will wear no bra under it so I can see the tips of her budding little titties through the material. Den she is to wear her nice pleated cheer leader skirt like in da photo, only I don want her to wear no panties under it. From now on, yo daughter is forbidden to ever wear any panties. We want dat fresh young cunt and ass ready and available at all times. I want you to have some really top drawer booze at yo house ready for me. I am not sure what I will want, so you better have enough to satisfy me, whatever my taste might be. Who da fuck knows, I may want a cosmo, or maybe some of dat Louis XIII Brandy dat costs three hundred dollars. You better have it all. After I has a drink, you pretty little bitch and I gonna sit on da couch and get acquainted. Dat means you as da daddy get to watch me finger her cunt and play wit her titties. You gets to see her meet my big fat old dick and even lick and suck it a little. I always insists on sex on da first date, cause how else you know how a bitch perform, right? Shit, I insist on sex on every date. I mean dat is da only reason for da fucking date..to plow some pussy! Right? Otherwise I'd rather hang wit da congressional black caucus. Now she gonna be a little uptight and scared at firs...right? Specially when she see my dick and she know dat huge motherfucker is gonna plow her virgin twat! Oh yea, if she got any hair on her cunt yet, you make sure she shave it all off before tomorrow. I wanna see bald thirteen year old pussy."

While he said all of this to me at the health club, his dick got thicker and thicker and long strings of pre-fuck started to hang from the fat pisshole.

"Please don't hurt her...please." I was shaking in my naked agony.

"Hurt her? No why the fuck would I hurt my new girlfriend? I gonna love her. I gonna show her da pleasures of lovemaking. Shore, it gonna hurt a little da first time I ram my twelve and a half inch motherfucking dick balls deep into her tight little teenage pussy. Shore it gonna hurt when I pounds her as hard as I can, and den pull out and shove it as hard as I can up her little asshole. Shore dat gonna hurt a little, but dat is jus' part of growin' up. A her daddy, you understand dat. Right? Better to hab some senator like me who wants her for his girlfriend fucking her, den every boy at school who don't give a shit about her.

"Now don't you worry, I gonna take her into the bedroom to fuck her cunt and ass. I think dat is private. I mean, you can watch da first time she suck my balls and lick my dick and such. But fucking is between a guy and his girlfriend. I wants you dere at the start...at the sucking part, cause she is gonna be scared like I say, and you can calm her. Tell her it is a natural part of life, and she just gotta learn to please a man. She, she shoulda learned dat couple of years ago already. She is a late bloomer.

Now I am gonna want to use her bedroom for da first fuck,cause I wants to fuck her little bitch body in her teenage bed, wit all her teenage shit around. It will be so hot. But den, I is moving into your master bedroom. You can sleep on da couch. I wants a nice big bed and luxury for future fucks. I gotta fuck at least three times a day, usually more. Now of course I still going to be bangin' other cunt, but I will fuck your daughter regularly cause she is my number one girlfriend. My special bitch. I ain't gonna introduce her to my bros until after I fuck her for a week or so. Den when she broken in, I gonna share her with all da boys from dis here health club. Dere about twenty of us here as you know, so she gonna be pretty busy sucking nigga dick and getting ass and cunt fucked. We gonna do mos' of it over at yo house. You have lots of food dere at all times fo my brothers when dey comes over to fuck your daughter. Since she be fucking most every day all day and night from now on, I suggest you apply to home school her. Dat way, she don't even need to think about school and she can concentrate on nigga cock all da time."

"Please, please use condoms...." I had tears running down my face.

Barack roared with laughter. "Condoms? Shit...no. We never use condoms. It ruins da fuck. Dat little bitch gonna be pregnant in a couple of weeks at mos'. You gonna be da grand daddy of a nigga chile! And who knows. She young. If she stay tight enough and cute enough, maybe we fuck her for three or four years, you know, pass her around, pimp her out. Shit, she still young enough. She could hab five or six nigga babies! We don' allow no abortions. She gonna breed. Now my brothers and daddy be comin' over lots to fuck her too, so you better have lots of keys to yo house made, or jus' leave the fucking place unlocked. She don't leave da house without permission. I would hate it for both of you if some black bro comes over for a good hard fuck, and she not dere! Now I know you worried about her. Don' be. After a few days of getting nigga dick, she gonna love it so much, dat all she gonna live for. I seen it in young white bitches lots of times. Someday she gonna thank you for all dis. I mean how many girls her age so lucky to get ten to fifteen black cocks a day? Long as her pussy and asshole hold up, she be happy. One thing, she gonna hab to be a really good cocksucker, cause One thig is dat when da boys in my hood meet up wit da republics to work on budget agreements...we got dis thing. We hab our girlfriends suck da cocks of all da members of the other party, as kind of a peace signal, you know, a sign dat we is kewl and everything is okay. So she gonna pretty much hab a dick in her mouth twenty-four seven for da next few months. She gonna be sucking on old white guy dick even when she getting fucked by my bros. Dis house gonna be pretty packed full of black boys! Now, after a bitch has sucked fifteen to twenty dicks a day, she often get a real tired jaw and swollen lips and a sore tongue, so you gonna have to tell her no matter how tired she get, da last dick of da day she suck, gets jus' as good a suck as da first one in da morning. You gotta make sue she understand that. I can't have no bad reports from dem rpublicans dat my bitch can't suck!

Now we gots one more problem. Da little bitch gonna be so busy getting fucked and sucking dick, she ain't gonna hab no proper time to clean up da dicks after dey fuck her cunt and ass! You know it da bitch's job to clean a dick wit her mouth after a brother fuck her. I mean, you can't expect a brother to walk around wit pussy slime or ass juice on his dick. But she gonna be so busy, she ain't always gonna hab time to clean up, so you my friend is going to have to step up to da plate to help her. You gonna be the official dick cleaner. You gonna lick and suck da dicks clean after dey fuck yo bitch of a daughter. I want you naked on you hands and knees at all times around da house, ready to lick and suck dick clean. And you gonna do a fine job too, I just know it. You get all dat stink off da cock. Maybe you can entertain da brothers waiting next in line to fuck yo daughter too by lickig dere balls and assholes. I never thought of dat until just now. Hot damn, dat is a good idea, ain't it? So dey don't get bored while dey waitin. And den, to keep your daughter fresh and tight, after every three or four fucks, you gonna crawl in and suck the nigga cum right outta her pussy and asshole. Think how great dat is. You gonna get to suck some thirteen year old pussy and asshole! How lucky is dat? You gonna clean out her cunt real good with yo tongue so it is ready for da next nigga.

We gonna be da happiest family you ever seen! Now come on, white boy, suck my dick, can't you see it dripping all over da floor?"

I put my mouth over the head of the huge leaking hunk of fuckmeat, and resigned myself and my daughter to our new destiny.

Re:Obama has the solution. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309343)

Just a thought...

Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, a friend was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, he and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. He was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn my friend that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my friend was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on my friend - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, my friend is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). My friend started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, he's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, he had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"

0.027% (5, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308793)

the total amount of IPv6 address space in use is just 0.027 percent

So how many is that, in quadrillions?

Re:0.027% (2, Insightful)

Roguelazer (606927) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308849)

Yeah, that seemed a little unlikely to me as well. There are 2**128 addresses in IPv6. Even assuming that all of these were allocated in 64-bit subnets (fairly common), that's still 5*10**15 subnets. Which is a hugely ridiculous amount, many times larger than the IPv4 Internet. Something's fishy about this number...

Re:0.027% (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308901)

I thought they were only handing out live IPv6 addresses that were compatible with IPv4? That is 0:0:0:0:0:0:127.0.0.1 or ::127.0.0.1.

Re:0.027% (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310043)

My IPv6 addresses say no.

Re:0.027% (4, Informative)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308905)

I think what was meant was that of all the addresses in use .027% are IPv6 addresses and the other 99.973% are IPv4.

Re:0.027% (2, Funny)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308989)

wow, finally!

In other news .027% of slashdotters can understand what they read.

Re:0.027% (5, Informative)

Peristarkawan (875561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310153)

Nope. Try following the link in the actual article: "IPv6 address space given out: 143645.78 /32s in 3090 blocks out of 536870912 possible /32s in the currently defined global unicast space (2000::/3) = 0.027%."

Re:0.027% (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309145)

In general, the first half (64 bits) of the address identifies a subnet, and the last half is a host ID.

A typical end-user should get an allocation between a /48 and a /64. ISPs are typically given allocations in blocks of /32.

0.027% of the space is somewhere around a million /32's.

Re:0.027% (1)

bugg (65930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309909)

In general? AFAIK there are no exceptions. Am I wrong?

Re:0.027% (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310053)

You *are* wrong.

* Ability to get your own /48 prefix once your tunnel is up
Via: http://tunnelbroker.net/ [tunnelbroker.net]

Re:0.027% (1)

TBoon (1381891) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308913)

Given that 0.027% of 3.4x10^38 is around 10^34, I assume that they mean 0.027% compared to the usage of IPv4, which comes out to around 1 million.

Re:0.027% (3, Informative)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308959)

No, they probably mean "allocated", instead of actually "used" like they said. Many companies have already grabbed large IPv6 blocks but they are hardly in use at all.

Artificially Increase Demand (4, Interesting)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308813)

Instead of waiting for demand to outstrip supply, the IANA should artificially increase demand by bloating the prices for blocks. This will cause everyone to focus more on IP conservation. Because let's be truthful: IPv6 isn't going to be widely adopted in 5 years unless something changes (and it's best for everyone if that "something" isn't a complete lack of IP Addresses)

Re:Artificially Increase Demand (2, Interesting)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309299)

If I was an IPV6-hater, I couldn't come up with a better put-down of IPV6... that it's so pitiful that the only way to get quick adoption is to artificially kill the competition. Sounds like a Microsoft tactic.

I'm neutral on IPV6; when it becomes necessary, I'll switch. I'm running linux, which is ready for IPV6. We will exhaust IPV4 adress space in a few years, unless ISPs go NWN (Nuts With NAT). Reclaiming /8's from the likes of GE and Compaq (Compaq has 2 /8's; 16 million addresses) may buy another couple of years, but it only delays the inevitable.

Re:Artificially Increase Demand (4, Interesting)

MyHair (589485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309315)

Because let's be truthful: IPv6 isn't going to be widely adopted in 5 years unless something changes (and it's best for everyone if that "something" isn't a complete lack of IP Addresses)

It's already enabled by default in Linux distributions and Windows Vista and Server 2008. The major backbones should be able to handle it. Many businesses use proxy and other gateway servers for intranet-to-internet access, so if a company is not ready to migrate the intranet to IPv6 right away they can just put it on their proxy, gateway and public servers.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I don't think the obstacles are technical at this point. I think what needs to change is to put all the porn on IPv6-only servers. Or YouTube, FaceBook, MySpace, etc.. Okay not literally, but either the customers or the service needs to be accessible by IPv6 only before it make sense for everyone to make the effort. I'm guessing it will be forced when governments or militaries have large masses of users on IPv6 and the IPv6-IPv4 gateways start getting overloaded.

Re:Artificially Increase Demand (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309777)

I think what needs to change is to put all the porn on IPv6-only servers.

Something similar to that will happen in the not so distant future: ipv6experiment.com [ipv6experiment.com] .

Re:Artificially Increase Demand (1, Insightful)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310035)

GODDAMN IT. STOP LINKING THIS!

filter filter filter fodder.
filter filter filter fodder.
filter filter filter fodder.

Re:Artificially Increase Demand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26310389)

It's already enabled by default in Linux distributions and Windows Vista and Server 2008

Yes, and it's the first thing I disable. There have been many cases where bad/incorrect DNS records for ipv6 cause trouble.

Re:Artificially Increase Demand (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309325)

This will cause everyone to focus more on IP conservation.

...and 6 months later when the IP addresses run out for good, we're back at the old problem. Why not solve the problem properly, instead of degrading much of the Internet with NAT and putting up barriers to growth - especially in the mobile communications sector?

Why are they still available? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26308819)

What's to prevent someone from buying them all and charging more later?

An open market for IPv4 addresses would solve the 'depletion' problem by encouraging the most wasteful users to sell their addresses.

Re:Why are they still available? (4, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309233)

What's to prevent someone from buying them all and charging more later?

You can only get addresses if you can demonstrate a legitimate use for them. To get millions of addresses, you'd have to show that you have millions of devices that need them. Also, technically you can't resell addresses.

Re:Why are they still available? (3, Informative)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309335)

Also, technically you can't resell addresses.

Not just technically. It would be a huge, huge routing problem to do so and the regional registrars would step in to get back the IPs, since they are delegated and not bought or sold.

Re:Why are they still available? (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310185)

Do you want to explain why HP has two class A IP blocks then? Do you honestly think they need them? Or are they just an historical accident from takeovers and mergers?

If you created a market where some of the large class A networks that where allocated for free many years ago could be broken up and sold off for money then I am sure that companies with excess network allocations would put in the effort to make selling them off a viable proposition.

The basic problem at the moment with IP4 is that there is no market. The problem with IP6 is that there are millions of network devices (think printers, wireless access points, etc.) that don't run IP6 and there is no upgrade path (mostly because the device manufacture is not offering a suitable firmware upgrade). This makes the deployment cost high, very disruptive and difficult to justify.

tunnelbroker.net (5, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26308835)

Get your IPv6 addresses here: Tunnelbroker.net [tunnelbroker.net]

They've got a ton of presences all over the place, so latency is not too bad. It's really nice to be able to SSH directly to your boxes behind your router. Every address you get contains the square of the IPv4 address space for your own use.

Then bug your ISP to give you native connectivity.

Re:tunnelbroker.net (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309347)

I notice on that website their counter for ipv4 addresses still available is far different to that of the one mentioned in TFA. 560 million. Maybe it's just a cheesy flash counter and not based on any facts but it is extremely inaccurate, if so.

Re:tunnelbroker.net (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309527)

There are many IPv6 tunnel brokers - British Telecom, Hurricane Electric, and so on. Since it costs nothing to get an IPv6 tunnel, it's trivial to do, and all modern OS' support it, anyone worthy of the title of geek should already be using at least one such tunnel. (Hell, I used to run 10 IPv6 tunnels on Linux 2.0.20!)

Re:tunnelbroker.net (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309705)

If the tunnel exit is outside the Great Australian Firewall then you can count me in.

Re:tunnelbroker.net (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310059)

Aye. Check the HE's POPs. Many of them are inside the US.

Re:tunnelbroker.net (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310009)

I've hassled Comcast excessively to get my native IPv6 on business connections. Both me poking them and my posts on NANOG regarding the same fell on deaf ears. So I switched to Hurricane Electric. Native IPv6 FTW!

Disclaimer: Just a very, very satisfied transit customer.

Re:tunnelbroker.net (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310063)

Where does HE serve?
Also, how would a residential user select them as his ISP? ;)

Re:tunnelbroker.net (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310091)

Ahh, that's the rub. I get HE from Equinix, and then shoot it about 10 miles away using wireless on their roof =( On the other hand, you could always tunnel IPv6 over IPv4. I've done that in some situations where IPv6 was a must. Works well, but it ain't native :(

Re:tunnelbroker.net (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310177)

Yeah. I've a tunnel through HE's tunnel broker service.

*sits on his hands, waiting for Comcast to get with the times*

No need for IP addresses under Ninnle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26308979)

Ninnle Linux broke the IP barrier a couple of years ago, and has implemented something that will soon render the whole notion of IP addresses completely obsolete.

Re:No need for IP addresses under Ninnle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309085)

torrents?

Can someone calculate that for me? (5, Informative)

frooddude (148993) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309045)

What is .027% of 2**128

Here's a neat (and understandable) place to find out just how stupid it is to say that "only X%" if IPv6 is assigned: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6AddressSizeandAddressSpace-2.htm [tcpipguide.com]

IPv6 is HUGE. I didn't even understand how huge until I found out I can get an address for every friggin cell in my body.

Weeeee!

Re:Can someone calculate that for me? (4, Insightful)

paul248 (536459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309175)

The space may be astronomical, but astronomical amounts of space are wasted in order to simplify routing and such.

For all practical purposes, I would estimate that IPv6 is about 64k times larger than IPv4.

Re:Can someone calculate that for me? (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309749)

Except its not the IPv4 address we are running out of, its the number of blocks of address space that we are running out of and that was made worse when they stopped allocating /24. Every dual homed network out there will need a 2 routing entries even if they only use IPv6 addresses. We could double the IPv4 address space by using the protocol version bits and most (leaf node) routers won't even care.

Re:Can someone calculate that for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309751)

64k times larger? Care to explain how you figure that, because I'm not sure you comprehend how fscking large the IPv6 space is.

2^128 is roughly:
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

IPv4 address space is 4,294,967,296. That multiplied by 64,000 is roughly. 274,877,906,944,000

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 vs 274,877,906,944,000

I think you're a bit off by a few orders of magnitude.

Re:Can someone calculate that for me? (2, Informative)

fbjon (692006) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309805)

I think you're a bit off by a few orders of magnitude.

Did you read the post? Large bits of IPv6 are deliberately wasted in order to simplify routing. Thus, while there may be many more leaves, the branching structure is only 64k larger, to his estimate.

Re:Can someone calculate that for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309305)

you know, i knew how big the address space was but hearing it put in those terms, wow. one billion a second for 4.5 billion years and we still wouldn't be quite a trillionth of the available space.. yay us. now how do we get to 4: make $$$

Holy Shit (2, Interesting)

DanZ23 (901353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309921)

I had no idea exactly how big either. From your link:

[...]imagine the IPv4 address space is the 1.6-inch square above. In that case, the IPv6 address space would be represented by a square the size of the solar system.

Re:Can someone calculate that for me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26310225)

try cabeling them all though.

Re:Can someone calculate that for me? (3, Funny)

cababunga (1195153) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310263)

I can get an address for every friggin cell in my body.

Finally missing piece of the puzzle. When IPv6 was first planned it suppose to give enough addresses for every cell phone, but apparently due to miscommunication, they made it large enough to give address to every cell.

Why did they do it this way? (3, Insightful)

arrenlex (994824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309151)

I don't understand why they made IPv6 the way they did.

Sure, the size of the new address space is absolutely staggering, but this was done at the expense of making them impossible for a person to remember. Right now, I can go to some internet cafe and ssh into my home network because I can remember the IP.

Were I using an IPv6 address, I would have to pay for DNS service just so I could log into my own network remotely, or keep a scrap of paper and laboriously type it out.

Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet? For example, instead of using 8 bits, use x bits where x is specified at the beginning of the address. For example, you can use x=10 and create an address up to 1024.1024.1024.1024.

This still allows people to remember them easily, as there is no difference between remembering, say, 189 and 857 from a human brain perspective. It's three digits in each case. And, you can go as high as you need to. You can never deplete it, as you can just keep using more bits to represent the address when necessary, and all of the applications supporting such a protocol would be able to support that natively.

Best of all, assume x=8 unless explicitly specified, and voila -- perfect backwards compatibility with the existing IPv4 protocol. You no longer need to have separate treatment of IPv4 and next-gen address spaces, because IPv4 will be a subset of the expanded space.

Why the current mess of horrible alphanumeric sequences? Why didn't they make it easy on our eyes and do it like this?

Re:Why did they do it this way? (4, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309181)

There are several free DNS services, such as dyndns and no-ip, which work just fine for such uses.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309213)

A typical IPv6 address in dotted notation looks like:

128.91.45.157.220.40.0.0.0.0.252.87.212.200.31.255

So ... yeah, it's not that much better.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (3, Informative)

eggnet (75425) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309263)

Or you put your IPv6 address in ~/.ssh/config

Re:Why did they do it this way? (2, Insightful)

paul248 (536459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309269)

If your connection gets a /48 allocated to it, then you can have a relatively simple address, like:

2001:db8:a5b2::1

Where the last part is statically assigned by you. The addresses aren't really that messy unless you're using relying on autoconfiguration for the last 64 bits.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (4, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309373)

Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet? For example, instead of using 8 bits, use x bits where x is specified at the beginning of the address. For example, you can use x=10 and create an address up to 1024.1024.1024.1024.

You misunderstand the meaning of the octet, which is little more than a way to make a large number more understandable. If you take 255*255*255*255 you end up with the largest number that can be stored in a 32 bit integer. And it's this integer that is actually your "ip address". It's just rendered in octet format because 63.95.215.231 is much more readable than some huge integer like 2393201938.

But when you are talking about very, very, very, very large numbers, such as 2^128, even breaking up the numbers into "bite sized chunks" falls apart. Even when you use alphanumeric values, it still is hard to remember.

So DNS is your friend. It works well, fast, and reliably.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (5, Interesting)

MyHair (589485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309377)

They made it that way because it's similar in structure to IPv4 and made it long not to make 2^128 addressable devices but to make (theoretically up to) 2^64 collision domains with the possibility for 2^63 globally Unique IDentifiers and 2^63 non-globally-unique ID's. But a lot of people are going to ignore the global ID part and use (network)::1, (network)::2, etc. or have fun with hex letters with (network)::dead:beef and such. (Luckily--actually by design--these simplified IPv6 addresses will usually happen to be be in the non-globally-unique range.)

They intend to waste a lost of potential addresses to make routing tables simpler. Ideally the IPv6 network map will be a hierarchical structure of networks.

If you don't have DNS handy there are a growing number of peer-to-peer name resolution protocols that I expect will become more popular with IPv6 addressing.

So the answer is that the "horrible alphanumeric sequences" are designed to make easy-on-core-routers hierarchical routing feasible while squaring the theoretical maximum number of addressable hosts. And they really expect people to use managed or peer name resolution, anyway.

microsoft? patented? (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310283)

No thanks. Not even if they swear on a stack of bibles they'll never sue.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309413)

Dotted notations were considered when the IPng project (that lead to IPv6) was just getting started, and they were firmly rejected due to various problems. Dotted decimal notation loses its meaning when dots no longer denote octets.

Allowing the user to specify octet size is a problematic because it means many ip addresses have several radically different representations.

Lexically, using dots makes it look like an IPv4 address or hostname

Hexadecimal notation with colons works great.

It very clearly delineates the bits (esp. the leading bits) which are meaningful to IPv6's scoped addressing.

And the notation is actually fairly compact.

IP addresses are not meant to be memorized by humans in IPv4 OR v6. Use DNS for memorable identifiers.

Or (if you insist) use a hosts file, and carry it with you always.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309417)

I want to move to Mars because my brain is too small to remember my Earth latitude and longitude.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309487)

afaik, the ipv6 address is composed of of the mac address inside. which means its going to be at least 48bits ie 12 hexadecimal digits long.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (5, Informative)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309581)

> Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet?

*ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks IPV4, as far as today's applications, operating systems, and internet routers are concerned. Repeat... *ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks everything that relies on IPV4.

> Why not extend IPv4 by adding more bits to the representation of each octet?
> For example, instead of using 8 bits, use x bits where x is specified at the
> beginning of the address. For example, you can use x=10 and create an address
> up to 1024.1024.1024.1024.

Because internet traffic would be painfully slow, that's why. Current routers (the hardware that the internet runs on, not the toy between your modem and your computers) are hard-coded in ROM/firmware to handle 32-bit addresses. They can handle 128 bits in software, but it's a lot slower. Think hardware acceleration versus software acceleration for video cards. New routers can be had which do 128 bits in hardware. Your suggestion breaks down because...
a) the router would have to figure out dynamically how many bits constitutes a data packet.
b) once it figures that out, it has to route it. Because there are endless possibilities, it has to be done in software, again slowing it down.

> Best of all, assume x=8 unless explicitly specified, and voila -- perfect
> backwards compatibility with the existing IPv4 protocol.

Wring, wrang, wrung... wrong, wrong, wrong. At the hardware level, TCP/IP is a series of 8-bit bytes. Ain't gonna change without throwing out almost every computer currently in existence. That would make the switch from IPV4 to IPV6 look trivial.

Just in case you modify your proposal to say X=N bytes instead of X=N bits, there is still a problem. You would need a "flag byte" to signal how many bytes to use. IPV4-compliant software and hardware would choke on the extra bytes in the stream. I repeat what I said at the beginning... *ANY* physical change to IPV4 breaks IPV4. Given that assumption, we may as well start from scratch, and go back to square 1 when designing IPV6.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309663)

It really would be best to leave this kind of thing to the people who know what they're talking about. That's why you weren't on the IPng committee.

Re:Why did they do it this way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309813)

This comment clearly states to me that you did not inform yourself of the new enhancements the IPv6 protocol has. I can't wait till we are finally ready to make the jump into v6 and leave v4 behind. It was not one person that brainstormed on this and i'm guessing a simple solution like this was considered but marked as insufficient...
Have a look at frooddude's link above and you will see that v6 is going to be the best improvement to networking known to man.(and network administrators)
for your personal issue with remembering I would say: Go DNS or go home :)

Re:Why did they do it this way? (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310227)

Well there just are 32 bits for the address. So they need to make new headers and thus a new protocoll.

Further more there are a lot of features in IPv4 which seemed like a good idea, but turned out to be bad ideas. Those features have been fixed in IPv6.

Unfair knocking of V6 (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309223)

Even though last year the number of IPv6 addresses given out increased by almost a factor eight over 2007, the total amount of IPv6 address space in use is just 0.027 percent.'"

IPv6 addresses are 128 bits instead of v4's 32-bits. I sure HOPE the percentage stays small.

It's a preposterous claim that a whole 0.027 IPv6 addresses are in use. If that many addresses were in use, then that would mean IPv6 is wildly successful

If you just consider the first 48 bits of a V6 address. That's 281474976710656 network addresses.

IF 0.027% of those are in use, then 75,998,243,711 IPv6 networks have been used, which is more networks than IPv4 has ip addresses.

The full 128 bits allows for 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 host addresses.

If 0.027 of those are in use, then that would mean 91876239068653385135111144006577417 IPv6 host addresses are in use.

Re:Unfair knocking of V6 (1)

Peristarkawan (875561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309681)

0.027% of the IPv6 address space has been given out. Since the addresses are given out in large blocks, that doesn't mean that each and every address given out is actively being used.

we should get back IPV4 addresses from spammer isp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309273)

A lot of IPV4 addresses are owned by ISPs hosting spammers. If we can reclaim those, i think we can live a little longer with IPV4.

Get back IPv4 addresses assigned years ago (1, Insightful)

gregmac (629064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309385)

There's a whole ton of IPv4 address space that seems to be allocated to people that don't realistically need it. For example, HP, Apples. IBM, MIT, Ford, Digital, Halliburton, GE, Xerox and a bunch more all have /8's. AT&T has two /8's. Do these companies really need 16 million public IP addresses?

I know of many universities that have /16's, and really, same situation - do they really need 65k addresses? Labs, residence PCs, wifi laptops, are all assigned public IPs, and then behind a firewall so nothing is accepted inbound anyways. These systems could easily be assigned private addresses and stuck behind NAT.

Why don't we just tell them they have to justify use of all their IPs, and then in a year or two, subnet the crap out of their space and take over anything they're not using to serve internet-facing services? It would likely free up a few hundred million IPs, extending IPv4 space for a few more years.

Re:Get back IPv4 addresses assigned years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309577)

Why don't we just tell them they have to justify use of all their IPs, and then in a year or two, subnet the crap out of their space and take over anything they're not using to serve internet-facing services? It would likely free up a few hundred million IPs, extending IPv4 space for a few more years.

Just to delay the inevitable? If the transition to IPv6 is only done under pressure, nothing is gained by having a few more years without pressure.

At the current rate, 16 million IPs would delay the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses just about three weeks:
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

Re:Get back IPv4 addresses assigned years ago (1)

jelle (14827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309601)

Why? While it seems 'unfair' that they have those big chunks, that is not the problem. 'a few more years' only delays the breakdown point a bit, it doesn't make it go away...

The problem is that ip4v isn't big enough, and that NAT restricts addressability in a way that the end user (behind nat) cannot control.

Would you like to be put behind a NAT by your ISP, because you're a mere 'internet user' on a 'home connection', so obviously you don't need incoming connections, since the ISP decided for you that those can only be bad for you?

Without action, that's where we'll end up. People will find their ISP putting them behind NAT. Goodbye good skype connections, goodbye many internet protocols for you. Goodbye net neutrality. It will start costing a hefty premium to rent an 'internet addressable IP'...

Re:Get back IPv4 addresses assigned years ago (1)

Strider- (39683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309707)

I know of many universities that have /16's, and really, same situation - do they really need 65k addresses? Labs, residence PCs, wifi laptops, are all assigned public IPs, and then behind a firewall so nothing is accepted inbound anyways. These systems could easily be assigned private addresses and stuck behind NAT.

You are missing part of the point of the "public" IPs. By definition, public IP addresses are globally unique. This makes it easy to integrate or even just link two separate networks, since you can be absolutely sure that there will not be duplicated IP addresses. You try integrating or linking two separate, private networks that are both running on 192.168.0.0/24 :)

No need for IPv6, ever (1, Interesting)

isdnip (49656) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309393)

Because IPv6 was an awful mistake, an abortion created by a project group (IPNG) that had become so politicized that the best people had left. The remaining participants were hardly even the B team; they were F Troop. IPv6 was a mashup of two undergrad-level hacks, Steve's IP and Paul's IP, by Steve Deering and Paul Francis. Steve has disclaimed IPv6 and Paul's in a daze. All this was done before "ISP" was a household word -- it was still the NSF's private network.

So IPv6 perpetuates IPv4's mistakes and adds more of its own. It is costly but doesn't fix anything.

The existing v4 space is not well utilized. Blocks can be traded/bought/sold in the interim until something smarter than IPv6 comes along. IPv6 at this point is mainly a hack by equipment vendors to make you buy costly new stuff.

NAT is harmless to any application that is not broken in the first place. There is never justification for putting an IP address inside the application layer. Look at HTTP: It uses names, not addresses. In fact, it was a mistake to have applications resolve DNS; that should be a function of TCP/IP itself.

Re:No need for IPv6, ever (1)

Percy_Blakeney (542178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309593)

NAT is harmless to any application that is not broken in the first place. There is never justification for putting an IP address inside the application layer.

That's a rather silly thing to say. I would agree that applications should avoid handling IP addresses directly in their application-layer data, but to say that it's never justified is just stupid.

In fact, it was a mistake to have applications resolve DNS; that should be a function of TCP/IP itself.

You apparently don't understand the concept of layering.

Re:No need for IPv6, ever (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26309631)

> Because IPv6 was an awful mistake, an abortion created by a project group (IPNG) that had become so politicized that the best people had left.

It has problems, but I can't think of a networking protocol, at any layer, which didn't. The question is not "does it have problems?", but "is it better to switch to IPv6 than to stay with IPv4?". For a lot of us, the answer is "yes".

> So IPv6 perpetuates IPv4's mistakes and adds more of its own. It is costly but doesn't fix anything.

It has the potential to restore the end-to-end principle across most of the internet. (I can't think of anything else I do on my computer where the standards we use have static limits which are so low.)

> The existing v4 space is not well utilized. Blocks can be traded/bought/sold in the interim until something smarter than IPv6 comes along. IPv6 at this point is mainly a hack by equipment vendors to make you buy costly new stuff.

A good solution today is infinitely more valuable than a perfect solution never. Again, simply observing that there are problems with the current administration of IPv4 addresses is not useful. What might be useful would be comparing the relative cost of "fixing administrative problems with IPv4" to "switching to IPv6". In my experience, getting people to upgrade to a newer technology is a lot easier than fixing social issues.

Besides, all of my stuff (at work and at home) already supports IPv6. I don't have to buy anything new. If you invented something better than IPv6 today, wouldn't I have to buy new equipment that supported *that*?

> NAT is harmless to any application that is not broken in the first place. There is never justification for putting an IP address inside the application layer.

Sure, and running without memory protection is harmless to any application that is not broken in the first place. Those of us who have ever done any large-system design in real life have learned the hard way that there are quite a few broken applications in the world.

> Look at HTTP: It uses names, not addresses. In fact, it was a mistake to have applications resolve DNS; that should be a function of TCP/IP itself.

So instead of upgrading IP, you merely want to change how DNS and TCP and all networking applications work? Yeah, good luck with that.

Re:No need for IPv6, ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26310271)

I hope you are right.

There's a huge amount of network code that needs a major rewrite to support ipv6.

I am not thinking about small tools, I am thinking about big connection tracking systems (routing software, monitoring/stats software etc).

A 128 bit value has no possible representation in one of the standard unsigned integral types:
there is no uint128_t, and this means major changes to existing hash tables and related code.

Get IPv6 now, you might be sorry later (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309485)

Now you can still get n times 2^80 IP-Addresses for free from tunnel brokers like Sixxs.net. They even offer reverse DNS delegation and such things. You won't get that level of service from your local ISP, ever.

Re:Get IPv6 now, you might be sorry later (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309695)

You can also get 2^80 addresses from the 6to4 fairy with no tunnel broker required. And since the whole point of IPv6 is that it won't run out, there's really no need to stock up in advance.

Re:Get IPv6 now, you might be sorry later (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310267)

Yes, but right now you can get them from 2 guys in swiss insteadt of some big company which wants to charge you extra for access to Wikipedia.

IPv6 solves most technical problems, but unfortunately many problems are not technical, but caused by greedy ISPs.

Having a neutral ISP is a big advantage.

World's biggest consumers of everything (3, Insightful)

SystematicPsycho (456042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309731)

While China and the US consume the world's resources, even the virtual ones the rest of the world is trying to adopt more efficient methods? Same old familiar story.

Someone please answer this? (3, Funny)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309811)

Why not just take every existing IPv4 address and make it an alias for the same IPv6 address, but with 5 zeros in front of it? And declare that the owners of those IPv4 addresses now own the corresponding IPv6 addresses?

Re:Someone please answer this? (4, Informative)

Strider- (39683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309859)

Why not just take every existing IPv4 address and make it an alias for the same IPv6 address, but with 5 zeros in front of it? And declare that the owners of those IPv4 addresses now own the corresponding IPv6 addresses?

That's basically what 6to4 tunneling does, except that the ipv4 address defines a /64 subnet. :)

This is a manufactured crisis (0, Offtopic)

cmbondi (974579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26309871)

We could work just fine well into the future with IPv4 if addresses were allocated based on true need. The reality is that NAT works fine and is the preferred solution in most situations. Yes there are many things you need a public routable address for but when we look at the public addresses in use most are either not in use or wasted. For example one client has 8 IPs and a service on each one but actually they could get away with just three because the same IPs could be used. In any case this will generate a great deal of revenue for an issue like most that could be easily avoided.

Consumer Routers and IPv6? (2, Interesting)

WimBo (124634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310129)

When will consumer grade routers support IPv6?

When I can go and get a netgear, linksys, or dlink router that supports IPv6 then I'd hope that I can get IPv6 connectivity from my ISP. (QWest)

I'm running Vista and Linux here at home, and could operate on ipV6 without any issues right now, except that I guess most software is only configured to talk ipv4. (Does Firefox attempt to talk to any ipV6 locations?)

Re:Consumer Routers and IPv6? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26310327)

Yes, Firefox can do IPv6. There's an option (network.dns.disableIPv6) to disable it in about:config, though it is enabled by default.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?