×

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 Will Not Die In 2010

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the here's-a-shocker dept.

The Internet 264

darthcamaro writes "A couple of years ago, the big shots at IANA (that's the people that handle internet addressing) issued a release stating that the IPv4 address space was likely to be gone by 2010. Here we are in 2010 and guess what, IPv4 with its 4.3 billion addresses will NOT be all used up this year. In fact there could be another two years worth of addresses still left at this point. 'We're at about 10.2 percent (IPv4 address space) remaining globally,' John Curran, president and CEO of ARIN said. 'At our current trend rate we've got about 625 days before we will not have new IPv4 addresses available. We're still handling IPv4 requests from ISPs, hosting companies and large users for IPv4 address space, but that's a very short time period.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

264 comments

IPv4 doesn't die (3, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693602)

IPv4 doesn't die - it just runs out of available addresses.

Re:IPv4 doesn't die (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30693802)

Niggers. Yeah I said niggers you fucking liberal faggots. Mod me down you pieces of shit nigger lovers.

Re:IPv4 doesn't die (3, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693946)

Old programmers don't die, they just use an exploit to induce an overflow in the "time left to live" counter that runs the Reaper's scheduler.

Re:IPv4 doesn't die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694012)

Old pop singers never die; they just fade away after three and a half minutes. Who said that first?

Re:IPv4 doesn't die (2, Insightful)

six11 (579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693978)

IPv4 will die shortly after x86 does, which is to say: a long time from now.

Re:IPv4 doesn't die (1)

Ruede (824831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694094)

"We're still handling IPv4 requests from ISPs, hosting companies and large users for IPv4 address space, but that's a very short time period.'"

duh oh rly? quite obvious...

IPv4 not dying... (3, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693608)

IPv4 not dying... Enterprise Networking Planet confirms it!

That just doesn't have the same ring to it. ):

Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (5, Insightful)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693648)

Another two years? Good, now we can all can put off panicking for another two years and not do anything to resolve this in the meantime.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30693736)

That's the American way - if it doesn't hurt right now, it doesn't exist. Just look at Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid, the worthless dollar...

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30693788)

Worse than that, we'll continue to deal with the issues NAT causes, and I'm sure the various money grubbing ISP's will charge even more for additional IPs as we run out.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (1, Funny)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694048)

Issues that NAT causes? Like shielding n00bs from the wilds of the internet?

NAT is a blessing. It allows people to access the net without being exposed to it.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (5, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694240)

Issues that NAT causes? Like shielding n00bs from the wilds of the internet?

NAT is a blessing. It allows people to access the net without being exposed to it.

Someone should write some software that can be put on a router that would offer the same protection without also causing all the problems that come with NAT. It would be like this large barrier that burns up any unauthorized data that tries to get by.

Hopefully a good marketing person can think up a decent name for such a thing.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (3, Funny)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694310)

How about incinerator pit? Please contact me so I can get you in touch with my venture capitalists' financing division.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694938)

NAT doesn't do that. A firewall does. You just simply don't understand the difference.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693934)

It goes hand in hand with our doing nothing about global warming policy (the hope being once that kicks in it'll reduce the populace and free up some IPs). Stay the course.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694542)

ahh yes, global warming. Warmest summer in xx years? Proof of global warming! We must do something now!!!! Coldest winter in xx years? Ehh, that's just natural variation.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694176)

Well the dearth of IPv4 addresses has been predicted for almost as long as the year of the Linux desktop. Neither has happened.

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694646)

So this is that big change that the Mayans forecast for 2012....

Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (1)

prandal (87280) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694764)

So the question we each need to ask, on behalf of ourselves and our employers, is how long will it take to transition my/our setup to IPV6?

If the answer is greater than 2 years, it would be prudent to start doing something about it now.

Increase in domain value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30693694)

Does this imply that the value of latexcybersluts.com will increase, because someone (like Goldman Sachs) may buy the domain to reuse its IP address, thereby also stealing customers who use IP bookmarks?

If you are launching a site and there's no IPs around, will a value of $10-20 be unstomachable?

Will we see offers going out from ISPs to owners of little-visited domains asking if they would be interested in a buyback?

Solution: We need IP trading exchanges!

Re:Increase in domain value? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30693786)

A domain doesn't necessarily equate to a unique IP address. Most "little-visited domains" are on virtual hosts sharing their IP address with many others, or they're on someone's home server where the IP address is needed for that home's internet connection.

Re:Increase in domain value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694004)

You lie!
If the browser session passes along a request to the IP address which includes which website it wants to look at, then why can't all little-visited domains be on virtual hosts and share their IP address with many others?

Re:Increase in domain value? (3, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694510)

why can't all little-visited domains be on virtual hosts and share their IP address with many others?
Many can but as of right now if you want to use ssl/tls you pretty much need your own IP.

with ssl/tls the server does not have the http request at the time the connection is negotiated and certificates checked so it can't use the name from it to decide what certificate to present.

You can in principle have multiple domains on one certificate but it makes the certificate management far more of an administrative PITA (essentially the host would have to apply for a certificate on behalf of all the domains they host on an ip and get a new one every time a domain needed to be moved between machines)

There is a ssl/tls extention which tells the server which domain is being requested during the ssl handshake so it can send out different certificates for different domains. Unfortunately the built in ssl support in xp doesn't support it (both IE and chrome use the windows built in ssl support, firefox doesn't).

What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping... (0, Troll)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693712)

What about the countless meaningless sites that waste IPv4 addresses away, such as, Domain...
- parking
- tasting
- sniping
- squatting
- warehousing
- front running
and so on....
(see list of variations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_parking [wikipedia.org] ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_parking )

I bet those use a good 40% of internet IPv4 addresses, and I wish we could reduce that number to 0%.
It would not solve the lack of IPv4 addresses in the long run, but it would save us all a frustrating experience when browsing and/or trying to register a legitimate website.

Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (5, Informative)

Kufat (563166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693754)

Domain squatters and the like use one IP (and one server) for thousands and thousands of domains. They're parasites but they're not using anything like a significant fraction of the available IP space.

Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (-1, Redundant)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693764)

Having a domain name does not mean you have an unique IP address assigned to it. It's not one-to-one.

Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (-1, Redundant)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693772)

Those practices waste domain names, not IP addresses. In theory you can map an infinite number of DNS names to a single IP. We may very well be having trouble with the depletion of semantically significant domain names, but those practices will not have any effect on IP availability.

Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (-1, Redundant)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693774)

99% of those are on servers sharing a single IP address. It's been about 15 years since each web site needed it's own IP address.

Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (-1, Redundant)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693832)

Parking a domain doesn't necessarily use up an IP address. A parked domain generally directs the user to an ad page, where multiple domains can all be directed to the same ad page. So, really, domain parking conserves IP addresses.

Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (1)

gclef (96311) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694010)

If you'd read the Domain Tasting wiki article [wikipedia.org] rather that just ranting, you would have found the following:

ICANN reported in August 2009, that prior to implementing excess domain deletion charges, the peak month for domain tastings was over 15 million domain names. After the $0.20 fee was implemented, this dropped to around 2 million domain names per month. As a result of the further increase in charges for excess domain deletions, implemented starting April 2009, the number of domain tastings dropped to below 60 thousand per month.

In short, not only have you mis-understood how many IPs the abusers are using (as others have pointed out), you're also behind the times for what people are doing about that behaviour.

Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694028)

I have 12 domains on one IP. Not to say that the different squatters aren't using a bunch though.

Better would be to pull back IPs from the folks who don't need them.

What about that block that the Ham Radio guys had out in San Francisco that was hijacked by the spammers? Or the companies and governments that have thousands of unused IPs? I used to work at one government place (contractor) and we had a large chunk for our site with about 2,000 employees.

Where I work, we have 1,200 people in the company and we use four NAT'd IP addresses. Since I have to add them to my server to allow admin access to my tools, I know which ones I use.

[John]

Trends (4, Funny)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693746)

"...At our current trend rate we've got about 625 days before we will not have new IPv4 addresses available..."

I think this:http://www.xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com] sums it up

Re:Trends (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693852)

that about sums up the work and methodology of the Climate Research Unit

Re:Trends (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693932)

Way to summarize a few decades' worth of work by hundreds of scientists. If that's your standard of proof, then I assume you wake up every morning and start your computing project with 2 tons of sand, because you just can't trust the hardware and software makers. I see that you're posting, so you must be really smart and hardworking too...

Re:Trends (0, Troll)

PolyDwarf (156355) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693982)

Way to summarize a few decades' worth of work by hundreds of scientists. If that's your standard of proof, then I assume you wake up every morning and start your computing project with 2 tons of sand, because you just can't trust the hardware and software makers. I see that you're posting, so you must be really smart and hardworking too...

If the GP needed sand, I think we all can see that you have an abundance flowing out of various orifices.

Re:Trends (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693986)

yes, it is an accurate way to summarize their book-cooking and ex post facto predictions and treating measurements made by lip-blown hand shaped thermometers as equivalent to those made by latest digital transducer. They were in fact warning of deluge in years with more precipitation, drought in dry years, more violent hurricanes when a couple violent hurricanes occurred, more quantity of hurricanes in a yeaer with more than normal.....and of course the biggest folly is their "hockey stick" prediction while the earth thereupon went into cooling due to deep solar minimum. That is why they are "climatologists", activist with agenda getting funding for continuance of same. Real scientists have a very different opinion on the subject of AGW.

Re:Trends (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694082)

Yes yes, we know it already. All climate specialists are crackpots who only serve their own agenda. Can we please stop about global warming here on /.?

Re:Trends (1)

andreasg (1010787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694022)

Maybe he just trusts Amd/Intel to make processors that work but does not trust CRU to produce accurate predictions. If you trust some experts you do not have to trust them all.

Re:Trends (4, Informative)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693984)

No, this sums [potaroo.net] it up. If you'd bother to read this or an estimation done by someone else, then you'd know that the uncertainty is less than 3 months with high confidence. Of course the 625 days thing is bullshit, but saying 1.5 years +-3 months is probably what will happen, unless something really major changes don't start happening in the IPv4 process, which I wouldn't say is too likely based on the fact that it would require immediate global cooperation (see how well that went in Copenhagen).

Re:Trends (625 days vs 1.5 years +/- 3 mo) (4, Interesting)

jcurran (307641) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694154)

You're correct... I'm careful to point out the uncertainty when doing the interviews, but reporters tend to lock onto the IPv4 depletion countdown number regardless...

Re:Trends (1)

bkeahl (1688280) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694754)

That's great! It does fit too. I'm wondering if market forces won't buy us a lot more time. As your link points out, demand is not fixed or necessarily going to increase.

Could last another 10 years... (1, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693828)

...if we actually went after those who currently hold "monster" /8 and even /16 blocks that aren't doing squat (pun intended) with them.

I found my college campus computer lab has all of their workstations on the live Internet. No shit. Turned off the XP firewall and I'm pinging it. Props for them actually USING part of the monster /16 block they're assigned, but damn, talk about a Security nightmare...

Re:Could last another 10 years... (5, Insightful)

EyelessFade (618151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693942)

Nothing new there. The university I work at have a /16 network. Everything has its own ip, even projectors. And by God thats how its supposed to work

Re:Could last another 10 years... (0)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694092)

verything has its own ip, even projectors. And by God thats how its supposed to work

What, just in case someone wants to connect to the projector from some random remote location and display their own image?!? How many times do you ever need remote access to 99% of a University's computers, and 100% of its projectors?

Re:Could last another 10 years... (3, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694644)

The projector is mounted on the ceiling, and your laptop is on your desk. You wirelessly hook up the projector as an external monitor.

You're in a lab, and your media server is in your room. You hook up and start streaming music. The possibilities are endless.

All sorts of things Just Work so much better with ipv6.

Re:Could last another 10 years... (1)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694156)

That might well be, but there is over 2 billion addresses located in 126 privately held networks that don't need to be. How many of these [wikipedia.org] organizations are using even 1% of the IP addresses at their disposal? Give them 5 class B's of their choice from their current class A, and reclaim the rest, then this issue will go away for a long time.

Re:Could last another 10 years... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694480)

Give them 5 class B's of their choice from their current class A, and reclaim the rest, then this issue will go away for a long time.

No, it won't. The equivalent of one class A net of IP addresses gets assigned every 28 days. It would buy a few months and the resources are better invested in the transition to IPv6.

Re:Could last another 10 years... (2, Insightful)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693974)

Having live IP addresses is the way it should be done. NAT offers no more security than a simple firewall in this case.

Re:Could last another 10 years... (2, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694582)

Having live IP addresses is the way it should be done. NAT offers no more security than a simple firewall in this case.

Ah, no, having live IP addresses is the way it was done, back before viruses, trojans, 10,000-node botnets, and Microsoft got involved. That "simple" firewall you speak of is now absolutely mandatory for damn near any business or home today.

Trying to run the Internet "traditionally" on a 30-year old protocol is like trying to drive a Model-T on the freeway. Neither of the original designers ever envisioned what the future would bring.

And yes, I realize that IPv6 design will help eradicate NAT, and get it back to the way it "should" be from an addressing standpoint, but one can also see that just from a Security view, IPv6 is a far cry from v4.

Re:Could last another 10 years... (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694006)

I found my college campus computer lab has all of their workstations on the live Internet.

Congratulations for describing exactly how the Internet should be. It's also not a security nightmare at all, it's SOP.

Re:Could last another 10 years... (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694068)

...if we actually went after those who currently hold "monster" /8 and even /16 blocks that aren't doing squat (pun intended) with them.

When the IPv4 addresses run out, those "monster" holders will be doing something with them. Selling them.

The "monster" holders are big IT players, and they would never give away something that they see could be a valuable asset in the future.

Go knock at HP's door, with a bowl in your hand, and say: "Please, Sir, can I have some more IPv4 addresses?"

"More? You want MORE!"

Re:Could last another 10 years... (1)

sim82 (836928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694402)

even though it is not up to date, I found http://xkcd.com/195/ [xkcd.com] to be quite interesting. It is surprising (well not quite surprising) that halliburton owns a /8 block ...

2012 (1)

DamegedSpy (1702930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693840)

ONOZ! RUN! 2012 is also coming in the internet world! Well, more seriously, there is IPv6 so we don't have to worry for now(except for the harder to memorize addresses of the IPv6) I wonder how much we have left of IPv6? Maybe 2-3 decades? nahhh lets just wait until we have less than 10%(IPv6 Addresses) to make speculations.

Re:2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694322)

You don't realize just how many more addresses are available in IPv6. If I didn't screw up the calculation, you can have 6.6x10^19 IPv6 addresses per cm^2 of Earth surface! Counting both landmass and oceans in. That is 66 billion billion addresses per square centimetre. Some of the address space is reserved etc. but more than half is actually available for globally reachable unicast addresses.

Here: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6AddressSizeandAddressSpace-2.htm are some other examples that may help understand the size of the address space.

Re:2012 (3, Funny)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694662)

Yeah if only there was a way to assign names to these hard to remember numbers, universal names that anyone can use to get to that exact ip address that they wanted. Dumb people will use the name system all the time!
OH I KNOW! We'll name it DUMB NAME SYSTEM! DNS for short!

I genuinely wish they would just give it all away. (2, Insightful)

kieran (20691) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693862)

We'll never be able to justify the cost of implementing IPv6 properly until it becomes something customers are demanding, and that won't happen until there is stuff on the Internet people want that to reach couldn't get hold of an IPv4 address.

Still, I suppose I just have to be patient.

Whats the point? A three year old estimate is off (3, Interesting)

Troy Roberts (4682) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693866)

Big F...ing deal! How many predictions are accurate for three or more years? The original prediction was made in May, 2007 and current prediction has slipped the date from December 2, 2010 to November 18, 2012 not quite a 2 years. I challenge anyone to find accurate predictions that are 3 1/2 years old.

We need to be moving to IPV6 as quickly as possible. We may have a bit longer than was predicted 3 1/2 years ago. The thing that is scary is have we made much progress in moving to IPV6 in the last 3 1/2 year? I think not much. So, whatever the actual exhaustion dates are for IPV4 address. We can be certain that we are 3 1/2 years closer than we were and we have done almost nothing to prepare.

Re:Whats the point? A three year old estimate is o (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693908)

Entertainingly, we are moving to ipv6 as quickly as possible.

Re:Whats the point? A three year old estimate is o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694608)

I predict that in eight years the president of the USA will not be Barack Obama. (no caveats, no small print)

We're on slashdot, right? (-1, Troll)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693878)

IANA (that's the people that handle internet addressing)

Really? Wow, I would never have known. Thanks, Mr. Rogers. Can you say "IANA"? Try it. "I--A--N--A---". Very good, I knew you could.

Re:We're on slashdot, right? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694564)

I thought they were people who managed "I am not a ..." jokes. You know, like "IANAL" and "IANACS" and so on.

I always wondered who managed all those "not me" acronyms. Guess I'll have to keep wondering. Maybe it's Taco.

Not entirely true (1)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693880)

That's the point at which IANA is no longer the one handing out addresses. It's also the point at which the market for IP addresses opens, and companies start selling subnets.

There aren't 4.3 billion Internet facing IP addresses. The bulk are held and used internally by companies (for no good reason). People complain about NAT all the time, but it works. How many Internet facing IP addresses are used by Google's quarter million servers?

$ host google.com
google.com has address 64.233.169.104
google.com has address 64.233.169.105
google.com has address 64.233.169.106
google.com has address 64.233.169.147
google.com has address 64.233.169.99
google.com has address 64.233.169.103

Does any company really need more than a /29 subnet?

Re:Not entirely true (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694032)

Google uses a far more distributed network. Your 'host google.com' won't return the same addresses every time. For example from my network:


$ host google.com
google.com has address 74.125.45.99
google.com has address 74.125.45.103
google.com has address 74.125.45.104
google.com has address 74.125.45.105
google.com has address 74.125.45.106
google.com has address 74.125.45.147

it's an entirely differeent set of IP addresses.

Re:Not entirely true (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694602)

And, Google definitely has geographic distribution, where near Nagoya, Japan, that is:

$ host google.com
google.com has address 66.249.89.103
google.com has address 66.249.89.99
google.com has address 66.249.89.104
google.com has address 66.249.89.147

Interesting how the last bytes of the list I got are included in the list you got...

My ping to those servers is under 10ms, as well.

Re:Not entirely true (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694052)

You mean NAT solves more problems than it causes? I don't buy that for a second.

Re:Not entirely true (5, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694110)

It's also the point at which the market for IP addresses opens, and companies start selling subnets.

No. Repeat after me, there is no market in IPv4 addresses. The current rule is that when a RIR requests a block from IANA that would bring the IANA pool below 5 /8s, then every RIR gets one last /8 from the "final five". Then IANA is done and the RIRs have whatever addresses they have left in their unused pool. For AfrNIC it'll last decades, for APNIC/ARIN it's curtains in about a year.

There is no market in IPv4. There never will be, because reclaiming addresses is too hard and routing can't handle it atm (routing too small blocks). Let's switch to IPv6 already, for fuck's sake, we'll have to do that anyway even if a miracle happens, technical problems get worked out and someone sets up an IPv4 market, about 6 months after.

Re:Not entirely true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694374)

People complain about NAT all the time, but it works.

Really? Today I had to tunnel through my dedicated server to view a website, because they banned the shared IP my UMTS-provider uses for NATing its customers.

Re:Not entirely true (1)

bbn (172659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694702)

$ host google.com
google.com has address 74.125.43.104
google.com has address 74.125.43.105
google.com has address 74.125.43.147
google.com has address 74.125.43.103
google.com has address 74.125.43.99
google.com has address 74.125.43.106

Looks like Google just had you.

World endsz in 2012 anyway (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693890)

So it's all good.

Seriously random calendar rolling over, IPv4 addresses running out. At the same time! Proof that Jesus is coming back in 2012!?!

Guess we'll just going to have to have... (4, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693894)

...another financial crisis. Because that's the reason there was a slump in allocation rates. The current best projection for IANA pool exhaustion is Sep/Oct 2011 [potaroo.net] . Without the financial crisis that would have been end of 2010. The IANA guys would have been dead on, if not for a once in a 100 years financial event.

The tone of the submission is really silly. There wasn't 4.3B allocatable addresses in the first place. Out of the 256 "/8s" only 219.914 /8 is theoretically usable, even before subtracting the legacy allocations. The summary makes it sound like it was a doom-and-gloom prediction that didn't happen to be true, but that's not the case.

Also, it's "not the next 2 or 3 years", based on the available number of addresses 1.5 years for the IANA pool and 2,5 years are hard bars until RIRs (regional internet registries) run out.

Re:Guess we'll just going to have to have... (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694232)

Its been 1.5 to 2.5 years for the past 6 years.

Re:Guess we'll just going to have to have... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694478)

no it hasn't. In 2005 it was estimated to take 5-10 years. 2011-2012 is still spot on.

Say hello to isp-wide nat and sharing the same IP with dozens of users.

The adaptation of IPv6 will free IPv4 addresses (5, Interesting)

SlOrbA (957553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694016)

I predict that 2012 we will still have available IPv4 addresses.

This will happen because some IPv4 addresses will be reallocated as client-side doesn't need IPv4 addresses in IPv6 to access IPv4 resources. So IPv6 adaptation it self will slow the need to migrate to IPv6 as singular Internet Protocol.

Re:The adaptation of IPv6 will free IPv4 addresses (1)

bbn (172659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694836)

This will happen because some IPv4 addresses will be reallocated as client-side doesn't need IPv4 addresses in IPv6 to access IPv4 resources.

This is wrong. You do need an IPv4 address to access IPv4 resources.

There is no IPv6 to IPv4 "NAT" technology that has not been deprecated.

So likely we will all have dual stack IP connectivity, with a global unique IPv6 address and a local IPv4 address that will be NAT'ed at the ISP level.

STUPID (3, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694020)

Whether or not the issue will be forced, the problem is that for most of the developing world they already are either running out or pretty damn close. Because of this, if the US doesn't jump on the band wagon we will continue to be outpaced by countries like China that are already neck deep in rolling out IPv6. This isn't a matter of when, just if, and really ought to be done gradually, but quickly, rather than wait till a moment to be forced. I encourage anyone that can to move as quick as they can towards this rather than sit and wait and watch the world pass them by.

Re:STUPID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30694060)

The issue is not that other countries are running out of IPv4 addresses. They have access to the same ultimate supply of addresses that ISPs in the US do.

It's that they're building new networks which makes it easier to deploy IPv6.

Nortel's class A? (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694102)

Doesn't Nortel have an entire class A network (47.x.x.x) to itself? Having that returned to the pool after the death roll is complete should presumably buy a little time?

(I guess that falls into the "On the other hand, ARIN is also having some success in reclaiming unused IPv4 address space back from organizations that aren't using all of their addresses." line from the article?)

Re:Nortel's class A? (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694210)

Reclaiming all the legacy IP addresses would buy us 6 months tops. So we delayed the problem by 6 months, during which we would be fucking up the DoD, IBM and a handful of other companies, I'm sure it'd be worth it, it's not like the military would be fighting somewhere and they could pull off a massive networking restructure in less than a year for the 8 /8s they're holding on to.

In other news.... (4, Informative)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694186)

IPX won't die in 2010, either.

But, in all seriousness, there's a few things to remember here.
1. The v4 address space will be exhausted in the foreseeable future.
2. Reclaiming large blocks only delays that inevitability by a few months.
3. With a few exceptions, modern, supported OSes (Windows [2003, 2008, Vista, 7], GNU/Linux, all of the BSDs, OS X) support IPv6 perfectly.
4. Most of the critical applications support IPv6 perfectly.
5. The big holdup on the consumer side has been with the ISPs. The DOCSIS 3.0 roll-out is ongoing in many places.
6. The US government has mandated it. The compliance date was in 2008 for all of the Federal agencies on their backbones. It's just a matter now of getting ISP access to those sites, and configuring lower-level systems.

The luddite attitude here about this is amazing. If you're really all that concerned about it, and don't want to focus too much on the nuts-and-bolts, here's some advice: Learn BIND. Setting up your resolvers properly will spare you headaches.

I use IPv6 every day. I get lots of e-mail over IPv6 (netbsd and freebsd mailing lists, to name just a couple). I enjoy being able to ssh to all of my machines at home directly. It's here. Evaluate your crap, and see what's not going to work. Plan to replace that stuff. Most of it probably will need replacing by the time you get assigned a /64 or /48 by your ISP, anyway. This isn't rocket science. /rant

Re:In other news.... (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694512)

The answer to this is that too many people have tried to setup IPv6 and have run into problems and reverted back to IPv4 (Thank you Microsoft!)

Once burnt twice shy ... we'll wait until it is easy to setup (or default) ... why is is not the default on all new systems?

Re:In other news.... (2, Informative)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694698)

IPv6 was a PITA on 2000 and XP. It is the default protocol on Vista, 2008, and 7. In fact, one of the original bugs in Exchange 2007 was that you couldn't install it *without* IPv6 being enabled on your public interface.

But, I disagree with your contention that bad experiences are why people shy away from it. I think for more people, it's the nastiness of the stateless addresses. "But I can remember 192.168.0.1 in my head!" Yeah, and you can remember the four numbers in your /64 prefix, too. You're just not trying hard enough.

Re:In other news.... (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694886)

But, I disagree with your contention that bad experiences are why people shy away from it. I think for more people, it's the nastiness of the stateless addresses.

Nah, frankly, most people shy away from it because they just don't see the benefit that makes the trouble with it. And I'm one of them. I could, this weekend, get myself an ipv6 allocation from hurricane or a similar provider, configure my firewall appropriately, reconfig the few boxes on my network, and voila, have ipv6 deployed. But then what? What would that get me? "No NAT!" you say. Sure, great. Except any time I'd want remote access to my machines (say, at work), ipv6 is unavailable. So what was the point, again?

It's fundamentally a chicken-and-egg problem. Until ipv6 starts getting deployed, it's useless. But until ipv6 appears useful, it won't get deployed. It sucks, but that's the simple reality of the situation.

killer app (1)

jmyers (208878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694282)

For ipv6 to get widespread use there has to be a killer app that people (businesses or consumers) want or think they must have. I don't mean what geeks want or think they must have. The masses of sheeple are perfectly happy if everything is NAT'd.

I have no idea what this app may be, but it could be some cloud service that everyone wants and is only made available via ipv6 technology. Customers will demand that ISPs support it so they can use the product.

migration away from ipv4 for strictly technical reasons is not going to happen. By the time the killer app comes along it may be something other than ipv6 that takes over. Whatever happens it will not be for technical reasons or to make the network "better" it will be because clueless people want it.
 

an honest question: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694520)

speaking honestly from a position of ignorance on the issue: is there anything about the ipv6 spec that lends itself better to censorship and control? in other words, could china or iran do their authoritarian bullshit easier with ipv6 than with ipv4?

depending upon the answer, i will either support ipv6 adaptation, or fight giving up ipv4 until the bitter end

So what's the satus... (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694586)

...of deploying IPv6? Two years isn't that much time, and I haven't heard much of when IPv6 will be the new standard.

NAT ISP... (1)

proton (56759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30694816)

My ISP changed their network a couple of months ago. I have broadband, what they call broadband anyways, but now they only assign local addresses (192.168.x.x) to our home computers and proxy our shit... pisses me off, but what can I do, Im locked into an email address I dont want to change...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...