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!

What Happens When IPv4 Address Space Is Gone

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the stars-wink-out-one-by-one dept.

The Internet 520

darthcamaro writes 'We all know that IPv4 address space is almost all gone — but how will we know when the exact date is? And what will happen that day? In a new report, ARIN's CIO explains exactly what will happen on that last day of IPv4 address availability: '"We will run out of IPv4 address space and the real difficult part is that there is no flag date. It's a real moving date based on demand and the amount of address space we can reclaim from organizations," Jimmerson told InternetNews.com. "If things continue they way they have, ARIN will for the very first time, sometime between the middle and end of next year, receive a request for IPv4 address space that is justified and meets the policy. However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time."'

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

The Internet is Full (4, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968778)

The Internet is full ... come back later.

Re:The Internet is Full (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968816)

I'll sell you my IP address for $25

Re:The Internet is Full (4, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968894)

OK, but i want it cleaned first, your IP address has been to every porn site on the internet.

Re:The Internet is Full (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968904)

This is the more likely situation. The address price wont just run out but the prices will increase. Cost of one ip address is $0.5-$1 currently. IPv6 is not ready for mainstream use yet. If we ever run out of addresses, it doesn't mean they won't be available. It just means you have pay more for them.

Re:The Internet is Full (3, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969060)

Oh great, artificial scarcity caused by greedy bastards refusing to upgrade because they're either too cheap to upgrade or looking to make a buck selling unused addresses...

Re:The Internet is Full (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968844)

Just put the internet behind a NAT. Simple.

Re:The Internet is Full (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968878)

It's quite possible that lots of people will start running hacks of all kinds instead of ipv6. It's not like weird hacks aren't in use all over.

Re:The Internet is Full (4, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969102)

That's not necessary, IPv6 already has the IPv4 address space blocked off and reserved for IPv4 addresses, so all you need is protocol translation for the systems that can't understand IPv6. It's not a hard problem. Yeah it will cost a little money, but really it's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else a business needs to deal with.

You band-aid it until you can justify the necessary overhaul. Eventually everyone will be on IPv6.

In other words, the reason nobody is rushing to fix it is because it's not that big of a deal. The problem is small enough that you won't really need to worry about it until it actually comes up.

Weird hacks (1)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969120)

Like NAT?

Re:The Internet is Full (5, Funny)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968896)

Have you tried draining [dilbert.com] your ethernet cable?

Re:The Internet is Full (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969032)

Gives me a great excuse to never turn off my computer. :)

Re:The Internet is Full (0, Offtopic)

rliden (1473185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969190)

I was wondering why I got a busy signal through my DSL router this morning.

dev/null (4, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968786)

Send users to dev/null.

Hmmm (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968804)

However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time.

Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone. Do all those companies really need all those IP blocks? Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.

Re:Hmmm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968846)

Much like how if we had conserved our petroleum resources in the beginning, we wouldn't be freaking over the potential for shortage in this age...

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

geniusj (140174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968870)

Whatever. The world has had how long now to move to IPv6? If we had two additional years, we'd be talking about this two years from now instead of right now. I've been using it for nearly 10 years now. I just hope that this threat is finally becoming significant enough to get ISPs and other organizations moving faster in the right direction.

Re:Hmmm (3, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969138)

The reason nobody is rushing to fix it is because it isn't a big problem.

It's not like the Y2K bug, where stuff could blow up if it wasn't fixed before the clock struck midnight.

You know what is going to happen the first time ARIN says no? The organization will go "Oh, ok.Can I get a nice block of IPv6 instead?" and add some protocol translation to their network to deal with anything that can't handle IPv6. Done. Problem solved.

In other words, there is nothing to freak out about at all.

Seriously people, get a grip! We've known the solution to the problem since the early 90's, at least, and implementing it is trivial.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968888)

To be fair, we've had almost 10 years. Strike that, 12 years.

We've even had all OS and router support for 5 years.

Fact of the matter is, nobody's moving to IPv6 until they *have* to. We can cry doom and gloom all we want (we have been, after all), and nobody cares. When Comcast can't address new customers, they'll get off their ass.

Though that's a bit of a gamble. The right answer is moving to IPv6, the best answer is doing that in advance, but they'll definitely consider just NATting new customers. Hopefully they'll do things properly, but this is ISPs we're talking about.

Re:Hmmm (2, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968974)

but they'll definitely consider just NATting new customers.

Trouble is, 99% of users won't even notice. If they profile the users to figure out which ones won't notice beforehand, even more.

Re:Hmmm (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969126)

but they'll definitely consider just NATting new customers.

Trouble is, 99% of users won't even notice. If they profile the users to figure out which ones won't notice beforehand, even more.

Naw, they'll just NAT everyone and charge users that want a publically addressable IP. They will give the tier a name like "Gamer Pro" and the chart that lists differences between packages will have a new row for "Ability to host internet games" or something like that.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969156)

99% of users have computers that handle IPv6 just fine, most consumer routers even do it just fine.

This is such a non-issue it's just hilarious watching everybody freak about it.

Re:Hmmm (2, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968944)

The price for ipv4 addys will go up. Their people who suddenly own fortunes in un-sold ipv4 addresses will start to sabotage ipv6, hiring marketing teams to spew bad news about it all over. The IPV4 price and demand go up more. Trade battles between Japan, the US, China and Europe will break out. IPV4 will be deemed a national security interest, and a government oversight board in the Dept of Commerce set up. IPV6 will be relegated to a hackers hangout meeting space along with IRC. Japan will invade the US with self-repairing nanobot armies eating up all copper and fiber connections. The US will firebomb Germany and feed a couple of nukes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Re:Hmmm (1)

6350' (936630) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969108)

+1 funny AND +1 insightful. There's actually a lot of interesting potential truth in your comedic comment.

Re:Hmmm (1)

moreati (119629) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969118)

Is this satire or industry analysis? I can't tell.

Re:Hmmm (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969154)

It's documented historical fact, imported directly from 2013.

Re:Hmmm (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968970)

Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone.

They definitely say no. Not only that, if the utilization of your existing IP space drops below a certain threshold, ARIN will start taking it back. And they won't take back your emptier networks, they'll take back whatever they want (usually the largest ones, i.e. the ones you most want to keep). They also no longer issue anything bigger than... I think a /22? It might even be smaller.

Everybody except ARIN was always like this, of course. ARIN could afford to be more generous because the US has a disproportionately large number of IPs for its population (and even for its server count). But now they're in the same boat as APNIC and RIPE, so they've gotten much stricter than they used to be.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969014)

Address space shouldn't be a scarce resource. The only reason that it is presently behaving like one is because of the cost associated with transitioning to IPv6. However, it really isn't ARIN's responsibility to regulate allocation based on need. Everyone is going to have to transition to IPv6, might as well happen sooner rather than later.

Re:Hmmm (3, Funny)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969018)

I agree.

Also I suggest opening up .XXX and make all the porn guys move their sites to the .XXX namespace. Plus make them migrate to IPV6 so the rest of us can just stick with IPV4

Re:Hmmm (4, Interesting)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969084)

You conveniently cut out the part of the quote that said ARIN would "receive a request for IPv4 address space that is justified and meets the policy". Have you ever applied for IPv4 space? ARIN does say no if your application does not have sufficient justification. I've had it happen, when someone decided we needed to apply for space when we hadn't really filled our existing space (it was just assigned inefficiently).

Re:Hmmm (1)

aynoknman (1071612) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969088)

Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.

The current shortage is a surprise to no-one. There's no reason to think that another year or so is any different if the year or so falls in 2012 or in 2011 (unless the world ends in 2012 and the extermination of the human race frees up all the IP addresses.)

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969110)

what they need to do is remove all the /8 that they gave to large spam gangs.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969136)

They sort of do and the rules when they do so have become stricter. However, there is no economic incentive to find ways of doing things with fewer addresses. On the contrary, as long as there is IPv4 address space, it is wise to get as much of it as you can by offering applications to your users which justify IPv4 allocations. Then, when the IPv4 address space runs out, you can internally reallocate addresses to the most profitable applications, i.e. instead of giving several free IP addresses to DSL users, you could start charging for extra IP addresses (or even put DSL users behind NAT like on 3G networks) and use the reclaimed addresses for servers. When the IPv4 addresses run out, all major internet and hosting providers will have lots of IPv4 addresses stashed away in uses which technically justify the allocations but are really just excuses to hoard the space.

ARIN is the regional internet registry which is the most likely to run out of addresses first. Other RIRs use up their allocations more slowly. (At the time when the last but five /8 block is allocated to a RIR, each RIR gets one last /8 block and then they're on their own. Here's the policy. [icann.org] ) The day ARIN runs out of IP addresses is not the day when the last available IPv4 address has been allocated. The other RIRs will still have addresses, some for a very long time. Existing ISPs affected by ARIN's running out of addresses will also be able to shift their addresses around. The only ones who will be (quite dramatically) burned on that date are new operators who need multihomed address space.

Re:Hmmm (1)

bob5972 (693297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969178)

ARIN will for the very first time, sometime between the middle and end of next year, receive a request for IPv4 address space that is justified and meets the policy"

They say no all the time, to anyone that doesn't meet their criteria, ie "the policy".

I dunno exactly what that is, but I'm going to assume it includes some kind of need or size requirements.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969180)

However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time.

Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone. Do all those companies really need all those IP blocks? Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.

Too late. Hindsight is 20/20, etc. Does MIT really need a /8? No. Does HP need two? No. But as with any scarce resource when no more IPv4 addresses are available they will rise in value and people will auction off their space. The price will have an upper bound at the cost of deploying IPv6. That'll buy us another few years. And then people will NAT even more. That'll buy us a few more. And by that time most people will be ready to move to v6. There really is no need to panic here. I'm not sure where all of the anxiety stems from. The people that understand the issue and care about it are aware of it and on top of it. I suspect an ulterior motive.

Auction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968808)

I'll bet the likes of IBM, DEC, and others were originally assigned enormous blocks of addresses that they are barely touching. I wonder if stats exist on the number of unused reserved addresses?

Re:Auction? (3, Informative)

Gerald (9696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968864)

There are a few. See figure 5 of Geoff Huston's IPv4 Address Report [potaroo.net] .

Re:Auction? (2, Insightful)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969044)

Yeah, there are calculations. They all come to the same conclusion: The effort needed to get those addresses back in to use is enormous and the benefit would be that the final deadline moved 12-18 months forward...

In other words, it's not even close to being worth it.

why even have an ip.v whatever (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968812)

people type in addresses ex www.slashdot.org so why can't that be a direct address instead of processing it into something else.

Re:why even have an ip.v whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968978)

It'd be extremely inefficient. With numbers, you know that all IPs belonging to 123.222.X.Y can be handled by a router belonging to ISP XYZ on a particular fiber connection, and XYZ can route the packets to the right customer. You can't break down names like that, because there's millions of domains ending in .org.

Re:why even have an ip.v whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968990)

You obviously have no clue how this all works do you..

So now the question is... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968824)

Who's even trying to transition to IPv6? Considering how close we are to IPv4 Ragnarök, the changeover should be close to finished by now. I don't see any real sign that it's even started.

Re:So now the question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968880)

It isn't started. Who would it be? The organisation that have ample IP4 adresses have no need to change.

In fact, only the new applicants that won't get IP4 have any stake in this matter. They want change to happen, but why would the existing infrastructure change? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose...

Re:So now the question is... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968882)

The changeover will never happen until the IPv4 address space is exhausted. At that point, something will have to be done.

However.. what that will be is up for debate. They could reclaim blocks from companies and then hand out 1 IP for them to run behind a NAT firewall; they could start to charge for IPv4 addresses on a yearly basis and they'll get loads returned to them; they could just say 'none available' and hand out an IPv6 block instead.

I'm not sure which of the above will happen, but its going to be interesting... I've got my popcorn ready and am going to have fun watching the sparks fly when ARIN first says 'no'.

Re:So now the question is... (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969042)

They could reclaim blocks from companies and then hand out 1 IP for them to run behind a NAT firewall

I believe that's already being done. Though I believe the biggest single owner is DoD.

they could start to charge for IPv4 addresses on a yearly basis

Good idea. Never happen.

I've advocated charging a higher fee for second level domain names for a long time. After all, if you really need one, paying $30/year or even a lot more, is a minor expense compared to your hosting costs. It would put an end to cybersquatting. But every time I suggest it, I get flamed half to death. People won't pay a penny more than they have to for something, and never mind the consequences. Call it the WalMart effect.

The only solution is to move to IPv6. But, as you point out, people won't do this until they have to.

No, worse, they won't even begin preparations. Not a big deal for most of us, but the changeover is going to be non-trivial for ISPs, manufacturers, and a lot of other people who do Internet infrastructure.

When I was at Sun, I was on a product team for a new product with an embedded Service Processor (for remote control, diagnostics, lights-out management, etc.). Whenever I suggested that the new SP have IPv6 support, I was told "none of our customers is asking for this feature."

Re:So now the question is... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969122)

$30 is 63% of what I pay yearly for hosting.

Re:So now the question is... (4, Informative)

Gerald (9696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968890)

Trying? I'm done.

Re:So now the question is... (1)

johnw (3725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968956)

Me too.

This posting coming to you from 2001:8b0:e9:1:222:69ff:fe07:5046

Re:So now the question is... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969096)

Good for you. But hackers who've transitioned their personal networks isn't going to help much if the main Internet infrastructure doesn't support the new stack.

Re:So now the question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968892)

At the very least in the US, Comcast is starting public trials. I think part of the hold up (for cable modem users, at least), was the implementation of DHCP on IPv6, as well as updating DOCSIS to handle it. Hurricane Electric (he.net) has been a supporter of IPv6 for years, including providing a tunnel broker to help more people access.

Re:So now the question is... (1)

rtyhurst (460717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968988)

Looks like we're heading back to two tin cans with a string between them.

One bonus: no malware...

Easy (3, Funny)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968826)

Just do what I do at work. Ping the address, if there is no reply, assign it to something else.

Re:Easy (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968860)

You run out of IP addresses on your LAN?

Re:Easy (2, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968968)

Happens often in small companies that grow and run only a single subnet with a /24.

While this is always easy to fix, some companies don't want to risk restructuring their LAN.

Why run IPV6? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968828)

Every once in a while I think about it, then I can't find a reason. Anyone?

Re:Why run IPV6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968866)

File sharing without port forwarding?

Re:Why run IPV6? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969050)

Is there a list of IPV6-aware apps somewhere?

Re:Why run IPV6? (1)

johnw (3725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968900)

Every once in a while I think about it, then I can't find a reason. Anyone?

ipv6porn?

Re:Why run IPV6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969114)

That project died quite a while ago and never went live beyond a simple test page.

Re:Why run IPV6? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968908)

Right, it's somebody else problem. The question is, who?

everybody somebody nobody anybody (5, Funny)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969000)

An important job had to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done

Re:Why run IPV6? (5, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968932)

The Internet was designed so that any computer could connect to any other computer. This is evident in the design of things like FTP, etc.

Every phone, watch, fridge, TiVo, computer, and printer should have a public IP address. Imagine if you didn't need to port forward for Bittorrent, if Skype could connect right to your friend's computer, or you could print to your home printer by just entering its address. That's how the internet was/is supposed to work.

NAT breaks this. Behind a NAT box, nobody can address a specific computer - only the NAT itself. This happens to lend some security, but is essentially accidental. With IPv6, your home router will instead be a firewall. Each computer will be addressable, but will still need to pass through.

Plus, there's enough address to give each subscriber many thousand. And they don't need to change. No more charging for a static IP...

Also, routing is more efficient since it can be done properly by hierarchy.

So there's a bunch of reasons. Pick some.

Re:Why run IPV6? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969034)

We know that. We also know ways around the problems, and they work. All the stuff behind the NAT communicates. It's painful, but it does. Life goes on.

Re:Why run IPV6? (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969148)

Well, personally I'm not into BSDM. NAT is an unnecessary pain and a ugly hack that raises complexity and breaks stuff.

Re:Why run IPV6? (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969056)

Plus, there's enough address to give each subscriber many thousand. And they don't need to change. No more charging for a static IP...

And you've just listed one of the biggest reasons why we don't yet have IPv6, and why the major ISPs are in no hurry to do so. Do you have any idea how much extra they charge for an extra IP, let alone for a static one? if everyone already had multiple statics that revenue stream would dry up instantly.

Re:Why run IPV6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969072)

I don't think you make an argument for IPv6 here. Skype works with IPv4, as do BitTorrent, FTP and the other examples.

So IPv6 isn't giving any benefit here.

The problem is that IPv4 works fine, is very well understood and is easy to administer. NAT, while not idea and an occasional annoyance when gaming, is only a small thorn in IPv4's side; the incidental security is a benefit and 1 IP address per subscriber also simplifies administration for ISPs.

Perhaps the end of /. stories on end of IPv4 (4, Funny)

haus (129916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968830)

But somehow I doubt it.

Re:Perhaps the end of /. stories on end of IPv4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968938)

Yeah, eh? This is news for nerds, stuff that matters, right? Hard to think why they'd clutter it up with nonsense like the upcoming depletion of Internet addresses. As if that were technical news worth mention or something...

The end of the internet (1)

c1ay (703047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968834)

Sorry you've reached the End Of The Internet [endoftheinternet.com] . Please turn around and come back later.

where is the Restaurant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969026)

Milliways! The restaurant at the end of the internet.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This internet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968842)

Dr. Peter Venkman: This internet is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Politician: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Politician, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Hmm no big deal will happen? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968850)

Some company will try to get IPV4 space and won't get it. They will setup on IPV6. They will be in the news. Transition will begin. End of story.

Re:Hmm no big deal will happen? (4, Informative)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969030)

You seem to think that that company will be ok with an IPv6-only setup. This is not the case. An IPv6-only host can only be reached by other IPv6 hosts. So all those schmucks out there without IPv6 won't be able to reach the company. That's probably a dealbreaker.

well... (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968852)

it'll be a sad, sad day for lots of startups, that's for sure...

Bidding wars will begin (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969024)

Even now companies are hoarding IPV4 address space. More companies will invest in these valuable collectibles, locking up ever larger unused ranges. New markets in IPv4 address futures will arise. Rising costs, or claims thereof, will lead to ISPs charging even more for the temporary use of these valuable commodities. Great profits will be made before the migration to IPv6 is complete.

I hope Windows 7 x64 IP is fixed by then. (1)

The Altruist (1448701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968856)

I'm not aware of the current status, but at the beginning of my Windows 7x64 Build 7600 experience, I had to disable IPv6. I mentioned that in a previous /. post. It is my sincere hope that Windows 7 is ready to make that transition. The problem I'm foreseeing is the amount of legacy networking equipment I have and also that belonging to TimeWarner/ATT/Verizon/Your ISP Name Here.

Re:I hope Windows 7 x64 IP is fixed by then. (1)

johnw (3725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968928)

Depending on what your problems were, they may not have been faults in Windows 7. (Am I allowed to say that on Slashdot?) A common problem with getting started on ipv6 is having something on your LAN which says it can provide ipv6 connectivity but in fact can't. Client PCs then try to use the faulty gateway and the result is very slow or broken web browsing. As soon as ipv6 is disabled on the client PC, it all starts to work and so the ipv6 implementation on that PC unjustly gets the blame.

I see several things happening (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968868)

1: multinationals will probablly try to bend the rules to try and get IPs from a different rir (some rirs will run out before others).
2: isps will push end lusers* behind ISP level NAT in order to free up addresses for more important/lucrative purposes.
3: some sort of sale of IPs will probablly happen, whether it is sanctioned by IANA and the RIRs or not.

* we geeks will probablly be able to get public IPs but at a price premium.

Re:I see several things happening (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968982)

I agree. One or more of the 3 will happen before widespread adoption of IPv6. IPv4 addresses are more than enough for identifying organizations. However, if in some day individuals need public IP addresses, IPv6 will prevail.

Re:I see several things happening (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969128)

smartphones will start eating up addresses faster?

Re:I see several things happening (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969174)

Can they just use private addresses inside their ISPs?

What about IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968902)

That thing has existed for a decade or so...

Why aren't we using it?

Using IPv6 would be the obvious solution to this problem.

IPv4 space ran out long ago (1)

MrBucket101 (1395241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968912)

That's why DHCP and the IPv6 protocol was created

December 21, 2012 (1)

zidane2k1 (971794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968926)

The day we run out of IPv4 addresses.

It's time to get tough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31968930)

It is time to get tough with companies that are burying their heads in the sand and not preparing IPv6 deployments for the day when the IPv4 Internet stops growing. Financial Analysts on Wall Street should be asking tough questions to the CEOs of any publicly traded company.

For some companies, who haven't got their acts together, this will be a crisis that could sink the business. This is going to have a far greater impact than the minor disruption of transitioning the Internet to IPv6 in a time when the only way to get an IPv4 address is to shut something else off. Most companies could handle this transition if they had already started testing and trialing IPv6 today, but some companies are woefully far behind, and they will find that this causes their sales to grind to a halt. When there are no more IPv4 addresses, they can't hookup new customers. And they can't add new sites to existing customers, which will cause a customer exodus to other companies that have their IPv6 deployed and ready. That exodus will gather speed due to all the press coverage.

For instance, the shortage will hit us in 2012, an Olympic year. What happens if they can't get enough IPv4 addresses to extend the network into the Olympic park and the athlete apartments? That would be a global disaster for whoever is responsible.

China will probably cut over first (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968934)

China will probably cut over to IPv6 first. They started in 2000, and the 2008 Olympics was all IPv6. It was clear long ago that China alone needed more address space than IPv4 could provide. The government also likes the "everybody has a permanent IP address" concept, for control purposes.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if China went all IPv6 domestically, with any translation to IPv4 at the "Great Firewall".

All mobile devices should have been on IPv6 by now.

Re:China will probably cut over first (1)

jasmusic (786052) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969188)

Guess who else will like the concept for control purposes.

Why not break open the Class E block? (1)

Will Sargent (2751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968936)

The entire 240/ block is reserved. Is there something wrong with those IP addresses?

Re:Why not break open the Class E block? (1)

Trolan (42526) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969054)

Because it's classified as Experimental Use, so who knows what the existing IP implementations out there did to special case it in the code. So then you're out to updating firmwares and OSs to cope with the ability to us 240/4. Now as that's 16 /8s, and we're currently burning through a /8 per month, that's 1.33 years of additional time before we're out of v4 again. The proper solution is to use that time spent updating firmware and OSs, to do just that, but for IPv6, which will be able to go for much more time than 1.33 years.

Re:Why not break open the Class E block? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969070)

The amount of legacy hardware and software that just plain won't route reserved IPs, the number of idiots who've set up local networks on it, and the fact that at current allocation rates it would only buy a few weeks?

Time to start hoarding... (3, Funny)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968946)

I guess it's time to start filling bathtubs with IPv4 addresses!

in the short term... (3, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31968986)

in the short term it will add value to IPv4 addresses, and organizations not using them might *gasp* make money getting rid of ones it doesn't need. That's not a bad thing. We have this problem with spectrum too, there's no particular cost in having a huge chunk idling away once you've got it. Anything which motivated more efficient utilization is good, and money creates a motivation.

A short term will drive up the cost of IPv4 addresses will, in turn, make IPv6 look much more economically viable to people who actually pay for things. As with everything else in the real wold: money makes things happen. IPv6 isn't magically cheaper than IPv4, so no one has been all that bothered about it, so either you lower the cost of IPv6 or raise the cost of IPv4, and running out of IPv4 addresses manages the latter nicely.

On that day nothing will happen (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969016)

Normally the providers would get the IP addresses to give out. They won't be able to do that. However providers do not order them on a daily basis, so they will still have some available.
Some providers already ask extra for fixed IP addresses, even though they still need to provide one anyway (e.g. for ADSL) so nothing changes there either on that day.

So nothing will change on that day other that some can not be getting the IPs they asked for.
It will be interesting to see what will happen in the next weeks and months. Will IPv6 finally take over or will providers start giving out internal IP addresses for their customers and charge double for those that want a fixed one?

IP-based lawsuits (1)

jda104 (1652769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969068)

I wonder what it would mean to the RIAA (or any IP-based litigation) to have multiple ISP customers consistently NAT'ted to the same IP.

... Maybe this won't be so bad after all!

Recover ipv4 agress space from horders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969082)

Arin should require companies that merge to return IP address blocks they really don't need. Example HP has 2 class A address blocks HP had 1 (Net 15) then they bought Compaq and received another (Net 16) (along with a multitude of B and C blocks they acquired). If my math is correct that's over 32 million address in those 2 blocks alone. Do they need that many? Should they be required to move to 1 class A and return the other, I would say so. With all the mergers and acquisitions that have happened since the Dot com bubble there are a lot of companies sitting on blocks that they don't need.

ARIN should require that these companies return the blocks in a set period of time. This would allow legitimate needs to be addressed and give more time for IPV4. Frankly most companies could just use the private classes internally and only use public addresses for the systems that need them. HP, IBM, etc could use class A 10.x.x.x private internally and use a smaller block for external access. Today's Nat implementations could take care of the rest.

Just a thought

ARIN could even pay these companies a return fee to get the blocks back.

Yawn (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969104)

So, ARIN will say no. Will the Internet collapse because of that? Hell no. Whoever wants more IP addresses will have to go out on the free market and try purchasing them from someone. As it becomes a valuable asset companies and ISPs will see if they can charge extra for having their own IP address so they can sell the others. How many could live off a NAT'd connection? Or if you got say a machine with 100 incoming ports routed to you, could you configure any servers and whatnot to use that range? Eventually the cost/benefit will tip in the direction of IPv6. But I'm betting it'll be more like 2010 than next year.

IPv6 and telephone numbers (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969142)

Since we may have to do a transition any way, why not expand the telephone numbers system and assign a telephone number to every connected computer? Of course there maybe privacy concerns, so just a thought.

Almost gone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31969144)

Or is it greedy organizations hoarding addresses that they'll never use?

Windows and IPv6 (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969158)

Googling for something on the impact shifting to IPv6 got me to this pre 2006 article: http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/IPv6-Support-Microsoft-Windows.html [windowsnetworking.com]

A good read. Seems that although there is limited IPv6 support on Win95/98, but it is better to just dump the OS when the time comes. It seems that fun times are to be had in the new feature for sysadmins and techs everywhere...

Unused addresses are wasted addresses (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969166)

This sounds kind of like the story a few months ago about how Windows 7 actually puts all your RAM to use, rather than letting much of it sit idle, and how some people thought that a bad thing. Once all the IPv4 address space is in use, then it'll be utilized fully. In countries where capitalism is practiced, people will buy and sell IP address blocks. As an example, there are now a fixed number of Playstation 1 consoles; none will ever be produced again, yet you can still buy one, and this will continue to be the case for many years (until they all break, or 2012 is a disaster).

Contact tne Class B holders (2, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31969176)

...and offer them some serious wonga to switch to IPv6 and/or make more use of DHCP/NAT etc.

A lot of Universities have class B blocks (and a lot of those addresses are assigned to Ethernet cards now sitting in dusty cupboards and landfills). Still a non-trivial job, but probably easier for universities than big business.

Universities are gagging for cash at the moment - and even if all the cash is spent on the switch

Or the gub'ment can make them do it. Here in the UK, back in the 80s, the powers that be were forcing universities to use the ISO networking protocols: forcing them to switch to IPv6 is far less silly than that (e.g. unlike the ISO stack the IPv6 protocol actually exists and has been implemented by people).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?