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!

Black Market May Develop For IPv4 Addresses

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the step-into-this-alleyway dept.

Networking 282

GMGruman writes "Everyone knows that we're running out of traditional IPv4 Internet addresses and that switching to IPv6 is the answer — yet foot-dragging by IT departments and vendors means the problem is still on the back burner. IPv4/IPv6 coexistence is now expected to last for 5 years. In this article, Mel Beckman explains how this is all leading to a black market in traditional IPv4 addresses that will catch many people off-guard, and boost Internet access prices sky-high."

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

black market for first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081256)

gnaa represent, faggots.

Public IPs at premium prices (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081274)

You mean they will start NATing more often for residential customers. Long gone will be the default of having a dynamic Public IP address. Want one of those? That will cost extra.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (2, Funny)

wish bot (265150) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081314)

Double NAT, double good!

P.S. 10.1.x.x going cheap. Mail me!

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081350)

Except places like Slashdot, they won't let a sibling NAT address do anything useful.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (5, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081448)

"What would you do if you had a million dollars?"

"I'll tell you what I'd do, man: two IPv4 addresses at the same time, man."

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32082428)

"I'd buy a complete /28 subnet for my children!"

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082044)

127.0.0.1 for even cheaper bidding starts at 12 trillion dollars

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (5, Insightful)

youn (1516637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081520)

my provider uses 10.* addresses there therefore I had to change the addressing scheme on my LAN because I didn't want stuff routed accidentally... pisses me off... I'm sure more and more providers will do that... and that's accidents waiting to happen.

Ahhh, I long for the days when a private address was garanteed to be private. why don't they switch already to ipv6... it's been 15 years. I know it will irk some people but it's stable enough and it's about time... and as time passes it's going to get harder because people will be more dependent on the internet.

Most OSs & routers are compatible... I say it's time to require the change... give people a 6 month warning and switch... should be plenty of time to address most issues

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081750)

We seemed to make a relatively painless procedure of the digital TV switch. Or maybe I never noticed since I have been using internet for TV for so long. I don't even know how to set up a regular TV anymore.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (4, Informative)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082188)

> my provider uses 10.* addresses there therefore I had to change the
> addressing scheme on my LAN because

Why did you chose 10.x.x.x for your LAN in the first place ? I doubt that you are planning to connect 16,777,216 machines to your LAN ;-)

Guide lines are to use:

192.168.X.X if you need 65,536 IP addresses or less

172.16.X.X-172.31.X.X if you need between 65,536 and 1,048,576 IP addresses

10.X.X.X if you need between 1,048,576 and 16,777,216 IP addresses

Routing is slightly faster with more bits in your netmask. Although I do not think that you will notice a difference especially nowadays. I think this was one of the reasons for these guidelines. Following the guide lines also ease connectivity to bigger nated networks, your provider in your case.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (5, Informative)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082238)

Because every damn organisation I VPN to uses 192.168.x.x addresses, or 172.[16-32].x.x addresses. By using a 10.x with a 24 bit mask I can use space that doesn't route, doesn't conflict with the orgs I VPN to, and that doesn't require me to reconfigure.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (4, Insightful)

plan10 (1539185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082264)

Why not use 10 if it's a home network? The point of private reserved is that it should be, you know, private.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (2)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082434)

10.X.X.X if you need between 1,048,576 and 16,777,216 IP addresses

Or if you want to have any sanity in your VPNs.

Like, 10.X.X.*/24 is a physical network, 10.X.*.*/16 are networks at one localisation, 10.*.*.*/8 are all connected private networks together.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082342)

    How are they doing it? Can you hear the entire 10.0.0.0/8 network, or are they simply providing a single NAT address for internal use (i.e., on your final point to point link).

    I'm actually surprised that more residential providers haven't put the majority of their customers on NAT's, and providing public IP's as the exception, not the rule.

    I'm annoyed when some SEO "expert" wants a dozen /24's to stick on a handful of boxes because "the search engines will know I'm link spamming", but it's even more annoying to know millions of IP's are wasted because the providers don't want to conserve address space.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (4, Interesting)

optikos (1187213) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081836)

Not quite. Numerically, you will still have the same "public" IPv4 address that you have today (either dynamic or static). It is just that it will be like that _Star Trek NG_ episode where, upon hearing something munching on the Enterprise's hull, Dr. Crusher asks the ship's computer "What is the nature of the universe?" to which the answer comes back "The universe is an oblate spheroid one kilometer in diameter." In the IPv4-lives-on-forever world, "public" will be redefined to "among all of the subscribers of the same ISP" (not "worldwide" anymore). Then *all* IPv4 addresses (other than loopback and test ranges) will be NATed between ISPs/carriers. In other words, there will not be one Internet address-space anymore, but rather one IPv4-sized address space per ISP/carrier/telco. The goal is to carve the single Internet up into multiple per-telco Internets with interworking at the telco-to-telco or ISP-to-ISP boundary. There will be the AT&T Internet and separately the Verizon Internet and separately the Deutsche Telekom Internet and so forth.

Re:Public IPs at premium prices (4, Informative)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082000)

It is just that it will be like that _Star Trek NG_ episode where, upon hearing something munching on the Enterprise's hull, Dr. Crusher asks the ship's computer "What is the nature of the universe?" to which the answer comes back "The universe is an oblate spheroid one kilometer in diameter."

Dude, there was nothing munching on the hull, people were disappearing because she had dropped into a collapsing warp bubble of her own private universe!

CRUSHER: Computer, what's happening?
COMPUTER: Explosive decompression decks five through fourteen. Sealing off forward sections.
CRUSHER: Cause?
COMPUTER: A flaw in the ship's design.
CRUSHER: Show me. Analysis.
COMPUTER: No ship's structures exist forward of bulkhead three four two.


God!

Doubt it (1, Troll)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082104)

Seems more likely that what will happen is that all "normal users" get RFC1918 IPv4 addresses.

So you could have say 1000 to 2000 ISP users behind one ISP public IPv4 address, which will be shared to access the Internet. One /8 public IPv4 range can then serve 16 to 32 billion users.

Stuff like WoW, google, facebook, gmail, IM will still work.

But running a public server, Bittorrent and other P2P stuff will be difficult. If you are lucky the ISP might allow you to serve to peers within each RFC1918 "district".

The Media Companies and Powers-That-Be might consider this a feature and not a problem. Since this means locking in to a world of few talkers and many listeners.

Re:Doubt it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32082352)

....or you could use IPv6.

Asleep at the Switch (1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081280)

Someday soon you will wake up and find that all your favorite internet numers are owned by Italian islamo-communist gangs, and they have taken your wife away to their islamo-communist sodomy camp and are doing the sex with her without your permission. Then you will know why I always warned against the Italian islamo-communist threat, but Slashdot did not care.

Re:Asleep at the Switch (1, Offtopic)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081300)

That shit was funny for a while but now it's just annoying. Give it up, dude.

Truth is (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081294)

IPv4 is like oil. It'll never go away.

Luckily, IPv4 isn't a bad technology.

Re:Truth is (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081402)

IPv4 might be, but IPv4 addresses certainly are not like oil. The remaining addresses are not harder to find or costlier to acquire. The rate at which these addresses are assigned will increase right up to the very end, when suddenly there won't be new any new allocations, first by the IANA to the RIRs and then by the regional internet registries to ISPs. The supply of IPv4 addresses is finite. We know that we need more addresses than there are, the vast majority of addresses are already assigned and the rate of assignment is increasing. Right now everybody's hoarding IPv4 addresses: They're used as leniently as possible. Got a server? Get three addresses automatically. Why? Because that's a good enough excuse to get an allocation from the RIR. When there are no more allocations available, then the big redistribution of IPv4 addresses begins. Customers will have to start paying for addresses that were formerly included for free. This way there will still be addresses available for new applications, but they'll be taken from other applications (ones where they're not really needed at first, but eventually it will be a matter of who pays more.)

Re:Truth is (1)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081444)

Luckily, IPv4 isn't a bad technology.

On paper, it looked like a great technology when it was created, but nobody ever expected the internet to spread like wildfire. Not we're faced with exhaustion of it's (comparatively) tiny address space. In addition to that, ISP customers get a single IP and have to use NAT, which as we all know, causes lots of problems.

I guess an addressing crisis has it's ups and downs. The good part of this is that it will light a fire under ISPs and get them to seriously think about IPv6. The bad part is that IPv4 will become an even worse situation, with not only customer equipment NAT, but ISP-wide NAT, which causes routing messes, and will give ISPs yet another thing to gouge you over. Want a real IP? Oh, that's $20 a month extra.

Real pushes towards IPv6 deployment would make this entire point moot. However, half the big-name ISPs refuse to do anything about it, and until we see some real support from the home/small business ISPs, IPv6 will pretty much go nowhere, and we'll be stuck in the IPv4 hellhole.

I fail to see the black market part (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081318)

So if I have IPs, and someone else needs IPs, I sell them some of my IPs... What's the problem here? For that matter, that is how it works for anyone who's not a big provider. When I wanted static IPs for my cable connection I asked my cable ISP. They said sure, $5/month/each.

I'm just not sure I see a problem. Goes double since higher IPv4 prices may encourage IPv6. Consider:

Say I'm an ISP, we have all old v4 hardware. To the extent our routers support v6, it is all in software meaning that any significant amount of IPv6 will overload them. They only have IPv4 ASICs. I don't wanna upgrade because it is expensive. So I keep getting more and more customers that want IPs. However, I run out, my allocation is gone. ARIN says "Sorry, all space is allocated." So I go looking around. Turns out I can buy a /24... But for 500x what I used to. Ouch. Well then, maybe time to get some IPv6 hardware.

Likewise it could encourage customers to want IPv6. A company buys a net connection and says "We need 32 IPs." ISP says "Well you can have 32 v4 IPs for $3200/month, or you can have as many IPv6 IPs as you want, and 1 IPv4 IP for 6-to-4." Company says "Oh ok, v6 may be more of a pain, but it is worth it to save the money."

What it comes down to is we need to migrate away from IPv4. That'll be a long process, but one thing that'll help it along is if there's economic incentive to move to IPv6. Right now, the situation is generally that there is an economic DISincentive to move to v6. You need new hardware, sometimes new software, etc. It costs money and IPv4 works fine. However, if v4 starts costing more, that makes v6 more attractive.

So I don't see this as a "black market" nor do I see it as a big problem.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (2, Insightful)

Tuzanor (125152) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081382)

Any market that forms that people don't want to form is a black market. They'd prefer some "benevolent" agency to dole out the limited amount, nevermind that a few organizations are holding massive amounts of unused IP ranges. Making them worth money will encourage them to release them, but these people are afraid of markets.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081720)

Any market that forms that people don't want to form is a black market. They'd prefer some "benevolent" agency to dole out the limited amount, nevermind that a few organizations are holding massive amounts of unused IP ranges. Making them worth money will encourage them to release them, but these people are afraid of markets.

I think you're confusing "afraid of markets" with "afraid of unregulated markets".

If you don't understand why unregulated markets are bad, feel free to pickup a history book and look at the American business landscape in the 100 years preceding the 1930s.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (4, Insightful)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081866)

  Except where the corporations can buy whatever regulated market they wish to, and individuals have no choice in the matter. I agree with you, but the last decade, at least, has shown that government regulation in this country is for sale to the highest bidder.

SB

Re:I fail to see the black market part (3, Informative)

optikos (1187213) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081744)

Any market that forms that people don't want to form is a black market.

No, you have effectively defined "gray market" instead: an unauthorized market in commercial goods. Now if we were to pass a law that makes possession of an IPv4 address (or /8 IPv4 address) a crime (especially a felony instead of misdemeanor), then it becomes a black market. black = crime in criminal courts. gray = unauthorized breech of contract in civil courts.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081810)

They'd prefer some "benevolent" agency to dole out the limited amount, nevermind that a few organizations are holding massive amounts of unused IP ranges.

Not "nevermind" - that's exactly why the IP addresses should be doled out by a regulator and NOT resold. Just because some chain of company buyouts leads back from you to somebody that requested a /8 when they were given away for free, does NOT mean you have somehow "earned" millions of dollars in any meaningful sense. There is NO reason to financially reward such behavior.

The free-market-true-believers-under-all-circumstances crowd is correct that markets always find some solution, but why can't they see that sometimes it's a bad one?

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082008)

So if I found a now rare coin in my attic that my great granddad got from a bank than you say it's bad for me to sell it? If I bought a stock that then went up is it wrong for me to sell it at a profit? Or is it only evil when it's a method in which YOU can't make money yourself?

What's a better solution? IP4s are a limited resource, a market would allocate them in the most efficient manner possible. They're a valuable resource as well which means people are both willing and will pay for it. You can try to regulate that away but it won't work, my parents bought many things in the soviet union by trading in their alcohol allotments on the black market.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082094)

A market based solution would be good if IP addresses were leased instead of (permanently) given away in the first place. Curently, even a charge of e.g. $1/address/year would free up millions of addresses given away in huge blocks in the early days to a small number of businesses and universities.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082332)

So if I found a now rare coin in my attic that my great granddad got from a bank than you say it's bad for me to sell it?

No. But if you're using "found in attic" as the basis for a whole economic industry worth millions, then I'd say it was a little far from ideal.

We allow people to play the lottery, but no-one is suggesting that a lottery would be the best way to, for example, allocate corporate support contracts, or rail franchises. What is OK on a small scale for individuals isn't necessarily OK for the world as a whole.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081936)

Any market that forms that corporate/government interests don't want to form is a black market.

  Fixed, with respect.

SB

Re:I fail to see the black market part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081452)

What I see will end up happening is that the V4 prices will go up, and eventually for a static IP (v4 or v6), the price will be insane ($50-$100 a month, citing how few IPs are available.) Of course, when someone mentions that IPv6 doesn't have the number exhaustion issue that V4 does, the sales person will look at you and start drooling, just like you were trying to tell a chimp about vector calculus.

So even if IPv6 becomes common, eventually expect to either be forced to a dyndns-like service or be paying big bucks for even a single static IP, be it a V4 or a V6.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081476)

What I see will end up happening is that the V4 prices will go up, and eventually for a static IP (v4 or v6), the price will be insane ($50-$100 a month, citing how few IPs are available.) Of course, when someone mentions that IPv6 doesn't have the number exhaustion issue that V4 does, the sales person will look at you and start drooling, just like you were trying to tell a chimp about vector calculus.

So even if IPv6 becomes common, eventually expect to either be forced to a dyndns-like service or be paying big bucks for even a single static IP, be it a V4 or a V6.

with IPv6 it would be a static /64. It is hard to give out anything smaller than a /64.

Psst! Wanna buy a slash 32? Primo qualtity. (2, Funny)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081518)

I know a guy who can get you a slash 29, but it'll cost you.

More of a technical issue ... how are the people in this "black market" going to handle the routing?

Re:Psst! Wanna buy a slash 32? Primo qualtity. (4, Funny)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081556)

More of a technical issue ... how are the people in this "black market" going to handle the routing?

Tar. Routes don't get much blacker than that.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1)

optikos (1187213) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081706)

black market = a market of illegal goods, such as narcotics or other against-the-law contraban, such as weapons of mass destruction
gray market = an unauthorized after-market of commercial goods
This IPv4 /8 market would be a gray market, because IPv4 addresses are not narcotics or weapons of mass destruction. Original poster is engaging in hyperbole for a troll-fishing effect.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1)

Lorens (597774) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081980)

Right. Add in the fact that black or gray market implies not going through the regulator, which means that the Whois will not be updated by said regulator. You'll also have bigger IPv4 routing tables and even more complicated and fragile BGP configurations since you'll have a financial incentive to let your IPs be used by people you do not have a direct interconnection with. For the routing tables it probably doesn't matter since routers should handle even more for IPv6, but the instabilities and uncertainties are not good.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1)

takev (214836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082046)

IPv6 will use less space in the router tables as the address space is split into a geographical tree. Or at least it used to be when I looked at it the last time, which was a long time ago. Anyway on that scheme the first few bits show the continent, then the country, then the ISP.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1, Troll)

JumpDrive (1437895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082262)

You have just pointed out the reason why a number of providers are dragging there feet about switching
They don't have to train anyone, hire anyone else, update any hardware, just sit and wait and in a couple of years everybody will be screaming.
"WE'RE OUT OF IP's , WE'RE OUT OF IP's"
It will make it to the business section 2 columns half a page, one paragraph explaining solution. But most of the article will talk about the shortage and the burden it has placed on ISP's who now have to manage and ration IP addresses. So that $5 IP address is now $12 dollars/month. They have now increased their cash intake 140% doing nothing.
So the only way this is going to happen is if someone like Google,Motorola,Nokia, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, becomes truly hampered by this and see a loss of product growth do to it. Then the money will flow to Congress and they will have a hearing on how the industry can't manage itself and eventually pass regulations requiring usage of IPv6.

I can't wait for the analogy of the big pipe having many little pipes with addresses (I may start taking book on which Congress man does it first).
This may also be a wonderful time for the ISP's to explain why they must control the flow of traffic with certain cost penalties. Partially so they can recoop the 140% gain for doing nothing they will loose if they cooperate.


I can't tell whether I'm being insightful or funny, please tell me.

Re:I fail to see the black market part (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082366)

When I wanted static IPs for my cable connection I asked my cable ISP. They said sure, $5/month/each.

If that is for ADDITIONAL IPs, that would be somewhat logical. If it is for the firs IP, then it is not. Cable modems connections are NOT the same as PSTN connections. Cable (and ADSL) will be likely to be connected all the time.

This means that the provider needs at least the amount of IPs as it has customers. This means to have a fixed IP or a Dynamic IP does not make any difference in the number of IPs needed. Providers however use the excuse that IP adresses are rare as an excuse to charge more money from it. There are even providers that force a different IP on you after a certain time.

But even then there is the question of charging for something that they themselves do not need to pay for. In Belgium the average price for a fixed IP is about 50EUR. The provider pays a fixed price for all his IPs. http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/membership/newlir-billing.html [ripe.net] and http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure.html [ripe.net]

In that last URL you see that a provider will pay 5.000EUR for its IPs. And as you can see almost all are in that group. I would say that 5.000EUR is more operational cost then a real cost. It also is a fixed cost. So charging 50EUR for an IP address is a bit of black market to me.

And most big ISPs won't care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081338)

They'll still rake in the profits without upgrading much (beyond some NAT hardware), and the times when you had end-to-end network layer connectivity between hosts across the Internet will be just a memory.

IPv4 Address depletion? (1)

euyis (1521257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081342)

They've been talking about this since maybe 2005 or earlier, and yet I didn't see this happen...

Re:IPv4 Address depletion? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081370)

I've been at an ISP since 1998 and they've been talking about it since at least 2000.

Re:IPv4 Address depletion? (4, Funny)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081442)

IPv4 depletion was a looming problem in 2005, and today it's an even more closely-looming problem. It's not like we discovered more numbers since then.

Re:IPv4 Address depletion? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081648)

It's not like we discovered more numbers since then.

My good friend Sean Connery [hulu.com] would disagree with you, sir.

Re:IPv4 Address depletion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32082382)

IPv4 depletion was a looming "problem" since the late '90s.

It is, in a word, bullshit.

I can go to $RANDOMHOSTINGPROVIDER and buy out an entire class C for $256/month, if not less. Seriously, $12/year for a dedicated IP is so common it hurts.

If we were in any real danger - if IPv4 addresses were anywhere near the level of rarity that keeps being touted by fearmongering fools - they'd be a *hell* of a lot more expensive.

I'm sure we'll get to that point eventually - and that's a good thing. Crying about IPv6 isn't going to get the world to switch. Switching costs money. Switching can end up costing a metric ton of money - consider the number of legacy systems out there that simply cannot handle IPv6 and *cannot* be upgraded. Not to mention switching layers, routing, firewalls. It all adds up, and it all adds up to a hell of a lot more than $1/month IPv4 addresses.

Can /8 companies resell subnets? (5, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081368)

Could an organization with a /8 resell a block of their IP addresses? I can't imagine how someone like MIT or US Postal Service, could use 16million IP addresses, or HP use 32million (they have their own plus Compaq/DECs).

Re:Can /8 companies resell subnets? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081406)

The problem with this is that it's likely to be more expensive to reconfigure their networks, internal address allocations, and everybody's routing tables in the world for those cut up /8's than it will be to just upgrade to IPv6. If somebody really needs v4 addresses that badly and want some space from these /8 holders, then they'll need to make it worth their while to start splitting them up.

Re:Can /8 companies resell subnets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081772)

The /8 holders will be as willing to give up their allocation as they are their trademarked domains. The older companies who have been around to be able to get such IP ranges know their value, and are going to sit on them, as part of their core corporate identity. The only way their holdings will ever be taken away is not by them selling the ranges out, but if one of the companies goes bankrupt, and someone knowledgeable buys the range just to break it apart to sell. Which likely won't happen because I'm sure there will be a bailout from the US taxpayers before this ever would happen.

A black market may develop (0, Redundant)

jimmyfrank (1106681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081392)

Or, a year before IPv4 addresses are estimated to run out, foot dragging IT departments will switch over to IPv6.

Re:A black market may develop (2, Insightful)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081596)

According to the article, that time was yesterday.

The authors of TFA estimate that in less than a year ARIN will have no more /8 blocks left to allocate.

Re:A black market may develop (2, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081764)

According to the article, that time was yesterday.

The authors of TFA estimate that in less than a year ARIN will have no more /8 blocks left to allocate.

Which has nothing to do with how many are sitting unused by ISPs and large companies sitting on big IP blocks.

Re:A black market may develop (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081890)

The article also estimates that the RAR allocations will deplete with at most a 6 month lag behind ARIN. So, the /8 depletion rate is a good indicator as to the rate that IPv4 addresses are being exhausted.

Also, according to the article, it's not so easy for the average organisation to hoard addresses:

Such a move could mean price increases as depletion nears. Under today's rules, a small organization would pay a minimum of $1,250 annually for a /24 assignment, which represents 256 addresses, the smallest block that can be portably routed on the Internet. Smaller allocations than this must be obtained from an ISP, at the cost of a few dollars per month per IP address. Larger organizations could pay between $4,500 and $18,000 per year, but in all cases address holders must provide justification to their registry to continue using IPv4 allocations.

And the percentage of addresses that are held by the 'old guard' are far too few, or too entrenched to do any more than stay the crunch for a few extra months.

Re:A black market may develop (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082006)

Also, according to the article, it's not so easy for the average organisation to hoard addresses:

Sure... as long as they use them. Like the 200+ Microsoft bots that hit my forums at the same time indexing the same content? I guess Microsoft is using those IPs... for what I dont know. Does each of their search servers need to do it's own index of my forums? Why will 15 or 20 be in the same thread at the same time?

I know... it doesnt matter...

Re:A black market may develop (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082014)

Sorry, I'm just kinda cranky because even after adding a robots.txt entry to slow them down, they still send a bunch to the same pages and way more bots than needed - just was noting the ton of their IPs on the server at the same time I was responding.

Re:A black market may develop (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082070)

The current use of IPv4 addresses is far from optimally efficient, but I don't think it's as sparse as many people seem to imply.

For example, those search bots might be on non-co-located machines. Yeah, companies could start making greater use of NAT gateways and better CIDR suballocations, but that isn't going to be easy or convenient. For many of those companies, changing the infrastructure to do that is close to the effort required of just going straight for the better solution of dual stack IPv4/IPv6.

For Sale (4, Funny)

gooman (709147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081422)

Slightly used internet address.
Act now and 127.0.0.0 could be yours today!
Only $5.00!

Re:For Sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081446)

Slightly used internet address. Act now and 127.0.0.0 could be yours today! Only $5.00!

no, it is only $5*10^999 (EVERY computer uses it)

Re:For Sale (2, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081516)

There's only an estimated 10^82 atoms in the universe. Just to put your 10^999 in perspective.

Re:For Sale (2, Interesting)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081558)

People don't understand numbers, they just hit the "0" and "9" keys until the number they're typing in "looks big" or "looks small".

Re:For Sale (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081708)

I'm angry about numbers. Numbers make me mad.

Re:For Sale (2, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081728)

People don't understand numbers, they just hit the "0" and "9" keys until the number they're typing in "looks big" or "looks small".

0.00000000000000000000009

I keep putting more zeroes in, and it's just not getting bigger.

Re:For Sale (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081590)

Oh yeah? Well, our country's national debt is 10^2000 dollars!

Re:For Sale (1)

kenj0418 (230916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081872)

Oh yeah? Well, our country's national debt is 10^2000 dollars!

Really, I didn't realize Zimbabwe had Internet access.

Re:For Sale (1)

plan10 (1539185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082312)

I think he was talking about Greece

Re:For Sale (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081622)

Fond memories of the salesman who gleefully attempted to fulfill a customer's request for a userid at a local ISP. The requested userid? root.

Re:For Sale (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081846)

Great seller! Perfect transaction! A+++++++++

Re:For Sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32082118)

Funny thing is that there is a concept of "used" IP addresses on the Internet. I'm sure that a customer is going to pay an ISP more for a "fresh" IP address, as opposed to one used by either spammers or dynamic IPs which means the IP likely is in a lot of blackhole lists, some of which have a policy of once on, always on.

Re:For Sale (1)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082406)

Damn, I was hoping that joke wasn't taken...

Now selling... (-1, Redundant)

fernir (1007503) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081466)

Now selling 127.0.0.1 Slightly used and in great condition! Serious offers only!

Re:Now selling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081690)

Too late man, I just bought the whole 127.0.0.0/8 block from some guy a couple of posts above yours.

another shit kdawson post (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081480)

everyone knows we are running out of ip4 space?! i guess.. in the same way the universe will eventually run out of energy. in a few 10's of billions of years.

And a black market? how the fuck is that going to happen with telco's in control. sure maybe they'll charge more for a public ip, big deal.

Re:another shit kdawson post (5, Funny)

Sanhedran (1803634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081646)

i guess.. in the same way the universe will eventually run out of energy.

"It was like a million high school physics teachers crying out in unison, then suddenly silenced."

Re:another shit kdawson post (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082130)

Pretty sure he means that entropy is increasing, which in some sense is the loss of energy; at least, useful energy. On the other hand, we're probably just going to be sucked into black holes.

Black Market (4, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081606)

How do you secretly buy something that only works, by definition, if the public routing table knows it belongs to you?

Re:Black Market (1)

maugle (1369813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081660)

How do you secretly buy something that only works, by definition, if the public routing table knows it belongs to you?

Shadowy figure in alley: *Pssst*..... Hey, buddy, wanna buy a billboard ad?

Re:Black Market (1)

mbeckman (645148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081848)

Actually, the public routing table isn't so neatly managed. It contains whatever ISPs are willing to advertise via BGP and the RADBs. Actual ownership is seldom verified unless someone complains about spam or other abuse. That's why ARIN has a new policy letting IPv4 holders designate a specific recipient when they release IPv4 space, essentially enabling IP address sales of /24 and larger prefixes. It's very important that the address registration records accurately reflect who is actually responsible for a particular IP allocation.

So what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081608)

Can someone please explain what any of this means to me, as an end user? I have a router (Time Capsule) seems to support IPv6, and my computer does too.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081798)

But does your ISP support IP6?

I'll be rich! (5, Funny)

Illogical Spock (1058270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081650)

1) Connect to my dynamic IP address ISP
2) Post ad on eBay for the IP
3) Sell it
4) Disconnect
5) Repeat from 1 to 5
6) Profit!

Re:I'll be rich! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32082114)

You'll never make any profit that way...

IP address squatting? (0)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081678)

How would this be any different than the current state of domain-name squatting? I'm personally afraid that as soon as the black market finds it, the naming bodies will start auctioning off IPv4 addresses to the highest bidder. As more and more number blocks go, the remaining few become more and more valuable. What would be their incentive to switch everyone over to IPv6, any more than ICANN might want to fix its broken naming system?

Bah! (0)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081700)

Google just needs to start a nationwide ISP with IPv6 on all that dark fiber they're sitting on. They could probably kill off the rest of the Internet inside the USA overnight.

Hold on right there! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081752)

What happened to IPv5?

Google and facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081844)

get google (including youtube) and facebook to switch to IPv6 only sites and see how long it takes ISP to make the move them. They will be fighting for the users. Hay use out ISP we have google and facebook xyz ISP dosn't :)

crap (0, Troll)

gavron (1300111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081858)

What a bunch of crap. Congrats for getting /. to repeat it. This is all crap.

Now go worrying about something real...

This isn't it.

E

Skyrocketing prices solves the problem (3, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32081892)

If IPv4 addresses become very expensive, people will just ... switch to IPv6.

Yeah. That's how free markets solve problems, be they black, or any other color.

Re:Skyrocketing prices solves the problem (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082232)

Also as I said, I think that's what's really needed. IPv6 adoption will cost money, no question about that. Equipment will have to be replaced, software will have to be upgraded, bugs will have to be fixed, etc, etc. It won't just be "Flip this switch and everything magically works." Because of that it is real easy to have a lot of inertia with IPv4. After all it works, and it works well. All of us chattering here are a testament to that. Also there's been technologies to really easily extend it. NAT is a great example. Homes are getting more computers these days and a single IP would be a problem, but NAT solves it nicely in a way that not only doesn't bother most users, it actually helps them (as NAT implies a default deny on inbound connections, thus increasing security).

So because of all that, we've just stuck with IPv4, long after the major technical issues with v6 have been worked out. We can get the hardware we need these days to route it at high speeds, software support isn't a big deal in most cases, you can do tunneling and so on to support legacy devices and networks and so on. While for awhile it was something that really couldn't be done (the necessary stuff to support it just wasn't there) not it just isn't being done because it costs more.

Thus we likely need a shift in cost to make it attractive. When IPv4 space starts to cost a lot because we've run out, the costs and hassle of IPv6 become worth it.

mod d0wn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081894)

BUWLA, or BSD a conscious stand brilliant plan National gay nigger guys are usually exactly what you've triumphs would s0on has run faster (Click Here of HIV and other hobbyist dilettante paper towels

ip geolocation databases to suffer. yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32081944)

I just hope that the unregulated market for IPv4 means that ip-geolocation databases become invalid and thus irrelevant. ip-geolocation is used for evil.

Re:ip geolocation databases to suffer. yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32082060)

Except that IPv6 addresses are essentially globally unique. Geolocation will become much more accurate.

Not to be too picky ... (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082004)

But usually when a chart contains a combination of past data and future predictions, it is customary to color the two sections differently or otherwise make a clear distinction between the two. I read that plot and thought (for a second) "Holy shit there are only 2 /8s left!" before realizing that it wasn't December 2010.

Here is a good example: http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.gif [washingtonpost.com]

Real problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32082024)

(perhaps silly) question:

Isn't it technically trivial to hide 99% of residential customers behind routers which are IPv6 but let the customer think they're IP4?

(with a 5 year timeframe you should have the ability to transition at least as quickly as new legitimate server addresses are needed)

Give the big ISP's a tax break or something if it's really an issue...

hi (1)

dianearbus (1803638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082068)

Except where the corporations can buy whatever regulated market they wish to, and individuals have no choice in the matter. I agree with you, but the last decade, at least, has shown that government regulation in this country is for sale to the highest bidder. Brac Apartments [welcome-to-croatia.com]

Haliburton's /8 (5, Funny)

soundguy (415780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082084)

ARIN had a booth at Interop last week. I asked them why they don't confiscate the /8 that's assigned to Haliburton, which is mostly wasted. They said they don't want to get shot.

It's not for everyone (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082310)

To really do blackmarket on IP addresses you cannot be anyone.
You need to be an ISP, with at least a LIR [wikipedia.org] to route those IPs almost everywhere or a hosting company so you don't move the IP but host the applications ... that article sounds a little bit non sense.

I'd be using it... (2, Insightful)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32082392)

I'd be using IPv6 if only my ISP supported it. I think all ISPs should get on with getting it out there, and then give us one by default. Then no one would have to worry, except the ISPs. Because IPv4's going to run out so soon, I'd recommend a nice round date for the deadline for the Internet switchover - 1/1/2011.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?