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!

NRO Warns They Are On Final IPv4 Address Blocks

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the last-call dept.

Networking 282

eldavojohn writes "According to the Number Resources Organization, they will have issued their final twelve IPv4 blocks in a few months. Each block is 16 million addresses and represents 1/256th of the total addresses issued. We are now down to 12 blocks left in the global pool for issuing to Regional Internet Registries, who will then assign the last addresses that will run out sometime later in 2011. The pool of free addresses works out to be less than half of where we were in January. The new numbers from the NRO indicate estimated global pool IP address exhaustion in a few months, a year earlier than they estimated at the beginning of 2010."

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

Someone help me out here (1, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33936898)

I've heard "we'll run out of addresses in one more year" for the last...well, for certain the last 5 years, but possibly longer.

When will this actually happen?

Re:Someone help me out here (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33936976)

When it gets expensive to continue using IPv4, which may not be until well after we "run out."
 
You're not seeing some magic IP address fairy making them last longer, you're seeing armies of senior IT pros working until after dark trying to sort this all out and deal with things because the pointy-haired bosses on top have been seeing that IPv4 is 'good enough.' As long as IPv4 looks easier and cheaper on paper than IPv6, that's what we'll be using.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33937972)

I liked my pointy-haired boss from three years ago.
He was always on business travel.

So does the switch to IPv6 mean I have to throw-out my old Windows XP and Mac OS 10.5 computers? Like many people threw-away their old analog TV sets on June 12 (DTV switchover)? Maybe I better sell them on ebay, so some other sucker gets stuck with the problem. Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha. ;-)

Re:Someone help me out here (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about 4 years ago | (#33938734)

OSX 10.5 supports ipv6 just fine, so did 10.4, not sure what version introduced V6 support...
XP also supports ipv6, although it's not installed by default and you can't use v6 exclusively.

Re:Someone help me out here (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | about 4 years ago | (#33938774)

They spent HOW long advertising those free-or-highly-subsidized digital converter boxes and people still threw away perfectly functional TVs?

Regardless, no. Both WinXP (unless you're seriously out of date on your software updates) and OS X 10.5 support IPv6 just fine. Of course that's separate from hundreds of badly-coded apps that somehow shoehorned themselves into the IPv4 stack, but that's hardly OS-dependant.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

Aquina (1923974) | about 4 years ago | (#33938430)

I fully agree with that statement altought address space is really exhausted. Luckily ranges are also sold and bought by new customers. What I think is more interestng is that some organizations, schools and universities hold large spaces and actually don't require them. My company holds about 100.00 IPs which is enough. Nevertheless we're going to migrate *everything* to IPv6 since this can actually be sold and we want to be the first ones to register large amounts of address space. Oh and by the way... IPv6 space won't last forever -- trust me!

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | about 4 years ago | (#33936986)

Yes ... and no. We WILL run out of IPV4 adresses but you are very likely to see large scale NAT (Network Adress Translation) for awhile before an eventual transition to IPV6.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

spyked (1878060) | about 4 years ago | (#33937102)

I hope this won't be the case. Sounds like a real nightmare to me.

(If anyone is wondering why, Tanenbaum dixit: "NAT violates the most fundamental rule of protocol layering: layer k may not make any assumptions about what layer k + 1 has put into the payload [...]", and that's only the tip of the iceberg)

Re:Someone help me out here (1, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | about 4 years ago | (#33937528)

Yes, and the reason why NAT routers have to do that is because of broken protocols that depend of the incorrect assumption that two hosts have unlimited unfettered universally synchronous connections to one another. They don't, and any modern protocol designer should be writing protocols that understand this principle. Even without NAT, you still have inbound connection blocking from firewalls, so there should be no good reason why someone should run into firewall/NAT issues beyond simply ignorance.

Re:Someone help me out here (5, Insightful)

entrigant (233266) | about 4 years ago | (#33938282)

So let me get this straight.. In the beginning we had a very simple very open design. Any host can talk to any other host on any port. Then, over the years bouts of paranoia, fear, and idiocy have created default drop firewalls and nat devices that fundamentally break the open nature of the internet, protocols that rely on that nature break when presented with that stupidity, and somehow it's the fault of the protocol designer?

How would you suggest we operate? Instead of using my internet connection to accept connections from my peers should I proxy through a 3rd party? Should I use a ridiculous hack like upnp to beg the nat device for a forward? What happens when we're all behind default drop inbound firewalls w/ a nat'd address generously provided by our ISP? Suddenly and even though you have an internet connection and I have an internet connection we can no longer communicate directly with each other? Do you not see this as a problem? Is this still a protocol issue?

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

j h woodyatt (13108) | about 4 years ago | (#33938522)

Should I use a ridiculous hack like upnp to beg the nat device for a forward?

The large-scale NAT that ISPs are deploying now do not implement any kind of port forwarding, so you can just forget all about that now.

Re:Someone help me out here (2, Informative)

Hylandr (813770) | about 4 years ago | (#33938538)

NAT-ing will only get us so far. In order to route to one private network to another the address must either be bridged and on the same subnet, or not bridged on a separate subnet. 10.0.0.0/8 networks will live a little longer than 192.168.0.0/16, but not by much. ISP A Natting all their customers to 10.10.1.0/24 and ISP B Natting all their customers to 10.10.1.0/24, nobody from ISP A will be able to talk to ISB B unless they create an explicit bridge between themselves. The potential for a abuse and misunderstanding of this is going to be rife.

Too much NAT and it's going to be much more than a PITA.

- Dan.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

Hylandr (813770) | about 4 years ago | (#33938644)

Addendum - This scenario will mainly affect VPN's in the short term.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 4 years ago | (#33938544)

Um, outside of academia, this has always and will continue to always be a problem. There will always be firewalls blocking corporate users from doing stupid things, and ISP's blocking exploitable ports, and QOS based restrictions for arbitrary nastiness. That is not something anyone can magically wipe away over night. I can't blame people writing protocols in the 70's and 80's for the open nature of what was probably a completely open internet. That internet doesn't exist anymore, will never exist again. To hope or assume otherwise just invites failure.

You can either be an optimist and hope the problem goes away (it won't), or you can be a pragmatist and use the best tools possible to get the job done.

Re:Someone help me out here (2, Insightful)

alvieboy (61292) | about 4 years ago | (#33937080)

Well, NAT saved us from a certain doom, and also provides extra security (might act as a firewall).

I don't see IPv6 deployed 100% any time soon. Increasing the number NATed Internet users might be the only feasible solution, at least in short term.

Álvaro

Re:Someone help me out here (2, Insightful)

nyet (19118) | about 4 years ago | (#33937538)

> Well, NAT saved us from a certain doom, and also provides extra security

NAT is a horrible hack. It might be a good solution for some things, but to fix the addressable space option, it is a disaster.

Talk about an almost entirely useless "broadcast" only Internet. Is that what you want?

> (might act as a firewall).

Even worse. I don't even want to begin to explain to you why you are wrong about this. The broad adoption of UPNP makes the idea that NAT provides you with a useful firewall complete idiocy....

If you want a firewall, make a firewall. Do not rely on NAT. Ever.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

powerlord (28156) | about 4 years ago | (#33937932)

> (might act as a firewall).

Even worse. I don't even want to begin to explain to you why you are wrong about this. The broad adoption of UPNP makes the idea that NAT provides you with a useful firewall complete idiocy....

In all fairness, almost all routers I've seen can disable UPnP with one checkbox.

If you know anything about Networks, you're either you're using NAT because you are forced to, in which case UPnP setting up automatic routes helps KEEP a NAT space from being "broadcast only", or you're using NAT because you have to and are also using it to control access, in which case you've already disabled UPnP and define your own explicit port forwarding to static internal addresses.

Then there is the third choice of "Don't know what NAT or UPnP are" (which covers most people on the Internet). They probably ARE less secure behind NAT routers with the belief that they are "safe", but they are certainly more secure then if they had just plugged directly into the broadband connection with their unpatched Win98/WinXP/Win-DuJour/OSX/Linux machine.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | about 4 years ago | (#33937968)

I don't see IPv6 deployed 100% any time soon.

Or even 1%.

Re:Someone help me out here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937112)

Really? I kept hearing "We'll run out of IPv4 addresses in five years" about four years ago, and so forth.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

hardburn (141468) | about 4 years ago | (#33938004)

Mobile networks are having to give out public IP address to smart phones, but NAT them such that they can assign the same public address to multiple phones.

People only think NAT works because they're largely shielded from the nightmare it creates.

Re:Someone help me out here (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 4 years ago | (#33938226)


Really? I kept hearing "We'll run out of IPv4 addresses in five years" about four years ago, and so forth.

I've been hearing about the end of IPv4 space since my very first ISP handed me XXIV.XII.CXXIV.VI via DHCP

Re:Someone help me out here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937166)

Probably just as they said.

But instead of doing the decent thing, we will end up extending IPv4 with some simple hack, like a 5th octet, or something else completely stupid and backwards, or more NATing of everything, making it horribly painful to setup any form of direct connections to anything.
Then ISPs will make you pay out the ass in order to get a direct internet IP.

Fun times to be had.

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

hardburn (141468) | about 4 years ago | (#33938028)

Make it 16 octets instead.

Re:Someone help me out here (5, Informative)

lyml (1200795) | about 4 years ago | (#33937170)

You are misstaken, notable predictions have predicted the following:

May 21, 2007: ARIN predicts sometime in 2010
June 20, 2007: LACNIC sets final date to januari 1, 2011
June 26, 2007: APNIC sets the date to sometime in 2010
April 15, 2009: ARIN says sometime before 2011


So for the last 3-4 years there has been a fairly good estimate on when they are supposed to run out.

Re:Someone help me out here (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937202)

Less than one year (12 months)
For sure before the end of next year, but probably not by the end of this year.

My bet is in Feb or March of 2011.

Keep in mind, despite having 12 /8 blocks left, that really means 6.

Once there are only 6 blocks left, whoever purchases #6 has ended the game, because the remaining 5 left are automatically to be given to the other world registries at that same moment.
So in reality those last 6 blocks will all go at the same time.

So 6 more /8 purchases and we will be out of space.

They just sold off 12 /8's in the past few months, so it will take half of 'a few months' at the same rate, even though I suspect it will go faster now that there is a crunch for it.

Re:Someone help me out here (0, Offtopic)

gmthor (1150907) | about 4 years ago | (#33937870)

mod parent up please

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

DeadBeef (15) | about 4 years ago | (#33937266)

Whoever was telling you that we were going to run out in one year five years ago was probably smoking methamphetamines at the time.

The IANA free pool will run out next year [potaroo.net] , probably before mid year.

The point at which you can't actually receive any more addresses won't come until the RIRs exhaust the blocks that they have received from IANA which might not be for another year after that.

Re:Someone help me out here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937876)

Also check out www.ipv4depletion.com, there are some good estimates and tools on that site. /S

Re:Someone help me out here (2, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 years ago | (#33937300)

Will be siites and services with only ipv6 addresses, that won't be able to be accessed from ipv4

Re:Someone help me out here (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 4 years ago | (#33937686)

The more likely scenario being that consumer end-points (vs. commercial end points) will be moved over to v6 first and they just won't be given an v4 route any longer. If a consumer types into a v4 address, they'll be translated (through DNS, or nat) to an appropriate v6 address end-point if one exists.

Consumer
V4 (private)
V6 (public)

ISP
V4 (consumer private->NAT)
V4 (NAT concentrator)
V6 (bridge)

Provider
V4 (end point)
V6 (end point)

So a V4 request would be Consumer->ISPv4(private)-NAT->ISPv4(public)->Provider while V6 would be Consumer->ISPv6->Provider

Re:Someone help me out here (5, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 4 years ago | (#33937414)

You don't want that question answered. Just like when a car's headed for a sheer cliff, you don't want to know exactly when it'll go over it. You want to avoid ever having to have that question answered.

The reason the day of recekoning's been being pushed back is because the IT techies, even as they've been warning of the inevitable cliff, have also been doing everything they can to push the deadline back. They know there's going to inevitably be problems making the switchover to IPv6, and they're trying to buy as much time as possible so we'll have time to fix any glitches, but sooner or later they're going to run out of ideas and tricks and the deadline's not going to move anymore. Ideally by that point it shouldn't matter because we've taken the warning and done what's needed to avoid the cliff entirely. But if everyone keeps assuming that, just because the deadline's been pushed back once, it'll keep being pushed back indefinitely, well, suddenly going into free-fall as the car's wheels pass over the cliff-edge is not a good feeling.

You want really impressive examples? Look back to the big fireball over Cape Canaveral that a few seconds before was STS-51-L (Challenger), or the big fireball over Texas that a few minutes before was STS-107 (Columbia). Challenger blew up because the managers at NASA knew the O-rings were eroding and would sooner or later be breached, and they brushed this off with "Well, it hasn't happened yet so it won't happen ever.". Columbia disintegrated during re-entry because managers at NASA knew pieces of heavy foam insulation were striking the leading edges of the wings during launch and sooner or later one of those strikes would fatally damage the heat-resistant panels, and they brushed this off with "Well, it hasn't happened yet so it won't happen ever.". When we run out of IPv4 addresses the results won't be quite so pyrotechnic, but if we keep saying "Well, it hasn't happened yet so it won't happen ever." we will end up regretting it.

Re:Someone help me out here (2, Interesting)

Merpy (1475709) | about 4 years ago | (#33937784)

What exactly is supposed to happen? Does it mean that new devices can't hook to the internet - or does something happen to everything that's currently running?

The answer, as always, is War (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33936996)

Liberate those poor, huddled masses of IP addresses.

We can do this together.

Re:The answer, as always, is War (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937256)

This is class warfare. Those corporations deserve their class A networks!

Temporary Fix (1)

Kenshin (43036) | about 4 years ago | (#33937554)

That's the same mentality as pawning the stuff in your house because your unemployment insurance is about to run out, rather than putting yourself to work and getting a job.

What happens when you run out of IP blocks to reclaim? (Please don't say NAT.)

How about a revoke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937010)

How about revoking some of the old Class A addresses that were given out in the beginning of time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks

Re:How about a revoke? (2, Insightful)

j h woodyatt (13108) | about 4 years ago | (#33937196)

I'd like to see you try.

Re:How about a revoke? (1)

Gerald (9696) | about 4 years ago | (#33937306)

Yes! Let's revoke blocks from AT&T and Level 3! Then we can hand out addresses to everyone that suddenly and mysteriously lost connectivity.

Re:How about a revoke? (1)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | about 4 years ago | (#33937520)

I'm sure he was talking about the AT&T and Level 3 ips. Surely he couldn't have meant the ones for Ford. You're a shitty troll.

Re:How about a revoke? (1)

Gerald (9696) | about 4 years ago | (#33937660)

Believe it or not, people have suggested that very thing on Slashdot before.

Re:How about a revoke? (5, Insightful)

gclef (96311) | about 4 years ago | (#33937738)

Why do we have to have this conversation every single time the issue comes up? gods...

We have allocated 14 /8 networks since January of 2010 (source: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt [iana.org] )....meaning we go through about 1.5 /8s every month. Reclaiming a /8 will take more than a couple weeks, so the simple fact is that reclamation isn't worth the effort: we would burn through several /8s in the time it would take us to reclaim one of them.

Re:How about a revoke? (1)

DeadBeef (15) | about 4 years ago | (#33938230)

We use up almost 2 /8's every month.

You could go through every one of those and fight the massive legal battle to get them all back ( probably taking us well beyond the date when we are out anyway ), and you have only bought a year or two.

Save yourself the trouble and deploy IPv6, instead of making lawyers rich and then deploying IPv6.

Quick.... Time to reserve my 16 million addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937070)

Buy them now, they are going fast. Get your own block of 16 million addresses. Hurry though, as there are only 12 blocks left!

2012, the year of IPv6 support? (1)

powerlord (28156) | about 4 years ago | (#33937140)

Well, once the large blocks are used up, there will finally be an impact on ISPs/Businesses to start migrating to IPv6. .... right?

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33937206)

I would not count on it. ISPs are increasingly consumption-oriented services; I would guess that instead of deploying IPv6, we will start to see ISPs offer lower prices for customers who agree to be NATed (or perhaps, demanding higher prices from those customers who refuse to be NATed).

Maybe there is some hope at the universities, though...

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 4 years ago | (#33937304)

How many customers would even notice if they got placed behind a NAT?

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#33937460)

It is tempting to say, "not many," given the number who are already behind NATs that they installed on their own. However, anyone who configured SSH will certainly notice, which is not necessarily as low a number as you might think...

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937788)

So, maybe 0.1%? If I were an ISP, sadly I wouldn't care less about upsetting those people if the other 99.9% are still happily paying.

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937716)

Those who run servers on their home machines (including those to P2P a lot, those who run apache web servers, those who expect to be able to access their running sshd and many others)

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33938002)

In other news, P2P traffic suddenly dropped. NAT at the ISP level means no port forwarding and will about break P2P.

World of Warcraft patches will suddenly take forever.

How many apps will break?.. hmm...

There goes VOIP

There goes IPv6 over IPv4.

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (2, Insightful)

j h woodyatt (13108) | about 4 years ago | (#33938606)

or perhaps, demanding higher prices from those customers who refuse to be NATed ...or perhaps just refusing to assign public addresses to anybody. "Don't like it? Tough. Call your congressman."

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (1)

moosesocks (264553) | about 4 years ago | (#33937280)

Or they could start buying them off of IBM, MIT, GE, Apple, Ford, Boeing, or any of the other companies who have at least 16.7 million addresses allocated to them.

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (1)

j h woodyatt (13108) | about 4 years ago | (#33937494)

What makes you think they would want to sell into what is obviously about to become a marketplace shocked by sudden scarcity? What, were you planning to slap them with a punitive "windfall asset" tax or something if they don't give up their legacy address grants? I can't WAIT to see the reaction *that* RFC.

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (1)

afidel (530433) | about 4 years ago | (#33938458)

Especially IBM and GE, they both could probably use them to provide "cloud" services with real IPv4 addresses to bring in major additional revenue.

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937342)

No. 2012 - the year of 5 layer NAT.

NAT works well over existing technologies, like DOCSIS 2, because it looks just like regular IPv4. IPv6 only works of DOCSIS 3. My cable company doesn't have any DOCSIS 3.0 hardware at all, since they aren't willing to give us the kind of bandwidth that would require an upgrade to DOCSIS 3. It's probably similar for other cable internet providers.

And for everyone who's not on cable internet, their providers will at least need software upgrades. Providers will be too lazy, though. For at least a few years, consumers will all get unroutable NATted IP addresses, and no IPv6 support.

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (3, Informative)

xororand (860319) | about 4 years ago | (#33937368)

Pretty much. The largest german consumer ISP recently announced its plan to enable an IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack on all DSL connections by the end of 2011. Source in German. [heise.de]
Several server hosters already implemented IPv6 during the last few months.

It's really overdue. All mobile ISPs that I've seen so far only offer NAT'ed Internet access. Horrible.

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (2, Informative)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | about 4 years ago | (#33937838)

I wish my ISP was as enlightened as this German one and they are one of the biggest in the UK as well and as recently as last March they had no plans to migrate to IPv6.

One thing holding it back from the Consumers is the lack of Comsumer ADSL Modem/routers that support it. AFAIK, the Draytek Vigor series is about the only ones that do it. Sigh

Re:2012, the year of IPv6 support? (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | about 4 years ago | (#33938686)

Here's [wordpress.com] a decent list of SOHO routers with IPv6 support.

How do I make money on this? (1)

snsh (968808) | about 4 years ago | (#33937236)

I want to make milk this IPV4 bubble before it pops. Someone out there must be stockpiling and securitizing addresses. Is there a fund or trust out there?

Re:How do I make money on this? (1)

j h woodyatt (13108) | about 4 years ago | (#33937374)

Easy there, speedy... first, you're going to need an OTC market.

Re:How do I make money on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937468)

Look for /8 blocks. Those organizations have been selling and buying pools for years already. My company was offered more than one million US for a /16 block, and that was almost ten years ago. The money stays with the big boys as usual.
If you wanna get rich, you better sell your body to a rich ol' lady somewhere.

Re:How do I make money on this? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33938568)

Get a patent on allowing IP addresses from 256.x.x.x -> 999.x.x.x

And what about claiming IPs back? (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | about 4 years ago | (#33937274)

There's no claim of unused IPs back to LIR. I bet that there's a lartgw number of IPv4 blocks actually unused or overbooked.
As a network admin I've never seen a real check about IP usage for customers without ASs.
This looks like the garbage problem. One side is the production, one is the disposal.
You cannot solve this kind of problem by just lookin gat one of the two sides.

Re:And what about claiming IPs back? (2, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | about 4 years ago | (#33937478)

It has been discussed already - if the class As that were allocated to corporates back when anybody with the money could buy a class A regardless of need were reclaimed, it wouldn't provide more than a few months of extra capacity.

Re:And what about claiming IPs back? (1)

snakegriffin (1597867) | about 4 years ago | (#33937820)

Forget about the unused IPs, just start taking poorly-used ones back. Celeb blogs could be the first to go.

Re:And what about claiming IPs back? (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about 4 years ago | (#33938064)

My university has a unique ip address for each and every ethernet outlet on campus.

Re:And what about claiming IPs back? (2, Interesting)

hardburn (141468) | about 4 years ago | (#33938242)

I currently run a business-class DSL connection with a block of 5 static IPs. I only use two. So, one may ask if there's any way to reclaim the other three.

The answer is quite simply no. There are technical reasons why you can't assign IPv4 addresses in blocks less than 5 but more than 1. Nor is there any clear way I could share the extra addresses with someone else. The other three addresses are simply lost. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of similar installations at ISPs and colos, and then you see why this is a problem that goes way beyond those misappropriated /8's.

Again?... (1, Informative)

goobenet (756437) | about 4 years ago | (#33937334)

They've been crying wolf for a decade about this. If they'd stop issuing 16 MILLION ip addresses to companies with no viable reason for offices to not use private/NAT addresses, this wouldn't be an issue. How about talking to some of those original companies that got issued /8's? HP now has 2(!!!) /8's in their control. (DEC/Compaq's and their own initial allocation) I doubt a company (even HP) can justify 32 million IPs. Or how about the US DoD? 7(!!!!!) /8's in their control. I find it hard to believe that even the government, who is all about conservation of resources you know, wouldn't be able to use a few different 10.0.0.0/8 networks globally and such. :) (c'mon 112 MILLION ip addresses just for the DoD?! LEARN2NAT ALREADY! Individual missiles do NOT need a public IP address!)

Re:Again?... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 years ago | (#33937400)

This is the truth. There are many many many companies who have been issued HUGE blocks that they don't and can not possibly use. If all the WASTED blocks were recouvered, IPv4 would not be nearly as close as it (not really) is to being "full".

Re:Again?... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937978)

i hope we don't recover any of those blocks, recovering those blocks is just going to push back the problem by several months instead of solving it by going to IPv6

Re:Again?... (3, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | about 4 years ago | (#33938262)

This has been debunked so many times, in this thread and others, that I'm fully in favor of banning anyone who mentions it ever again.

Re:Again?... (5, Insightful)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | about 4 years ago | (#33937432)

And yet none of those would make more than a dent.

They're allocating /8s, even the addition of several /8s would only extend the time frame by a few to several months, compared to the siginifigant effort required to reclaim them.

Re:Again?... (5, Informative)

gclef (96311) | about 4 years ago | (#33937760)

To build on this post, we've gone through 14 /8s just since January of 2010. Reclaiming a /8 would buy not even a month, and it would take more than a month to reclaim it.

Reclamation is wasted effort. Implement IPv6.

Assignment is/was the problem (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 4 years ago | (#33937418)

I work for a small company that at most has had 14 full-time employees that started back in the mid 90s. My boss had full class-C block back in the day which worked out to about 20 IPs per employee. He surrendered it years ago, though.

Re:Assignment is/was the problem (1)

vlm (69642) | about 4 years ago | (#33937510)

I work for a small company that at most has had 14 full-time employees that started back in the mid 90s. My boss had full class-C block back in the day which worked out to about 20 IPs per employee. He surrendered it years ago, though.

Twenty servers per admin isn't very impressive, even by Windows standards... Yes I understand that all 14 employees probably were not admins, but...

Assignment efficiency (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 4 years ago | (#33937428)

I worked for a company that had a /8 and may have been using at most /20 worth of them....

Re:Assignment efficiency (4, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | about 4 years ago | (#33937516)

Yeah, this gets posted EVERY TIME there's an article about IPv4 address exhaustion, and every time the answer is the same - increasing assignment efficiency will at most buy us a few months, perhaps a year or two, of time. It doesn't solve the problem, only postpones it a little longer.

In truth, when the addresses are exhausted, I expect all the holders of /8's to start auctioning off their unused allotments to the highest bidder. There's a reason none (or most) of them have not given addresses back voluntarily - they are about to become a very scarce, very valuable commodity for trade. Those companies who got in early and got a Class A will make maybe hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars auctioning off the addresses. When companies who have IPv4 address blocks are going into bankruptcy or up for sale, the value of their allotments will start to be accounted for as assets.

Which, I think, is one reason that some tech companies are not pushing harder for IPv6 adoption - they stand to make a lot of money off of artificial scarcity.

Re:Assignment efficiency (1)

vlm (69642) | about 4 years ago | (#33937560)

There is a small hole in that business model... combine:

will at most buy us a few months, perhaps a year or two, of time.

Those companies who got in early and got a Class A will make maybe hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars auctioning off the addresses.

Knowing that quote 1 is a vast exaggeration, probably turn out to be weeks to perhaps months, I'm guessing that it would be hard for the buyers to invest "billions" for weeks of service before they become worthless since everyone will have to go to IPv6

Re:Assignment efficiency (2, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | about 4 years ago | (#33937742)

I hope I'm wrong, but I've come to the conclusion there will be no quick transition to IPv6. When the last blocks get allocated, I think we'll enter a period of several years at least where IPv6 is *starting* to get rolled out, but is not rolled out yet, and companies who desperately need public IP addresses for their servers will pay thousands of dollars to buy IPv4 addresses from the hoarders. It's not like the Internet will suddenly end when IP address exhaustion is reached, it will just become much harder to get a public IP for servers or for making your home computer accessible to the outside world.

Carrier Grade NAT will probably start to be used by large ISPs, further extending the life of IPv4 by making it so that instead of getting 1 public IP address for your home/small business network, you now get zero public IP addresses for your home/SB network. Through stuff like that, millions of IP addresses will be 'reclaimed' and made available. . . at a price.

The increased price *will* give an incentive, finally, to companies and people to start adopting IPv6, but we're going to go through an expensive transitional period for some period of time while that happens.

The sad thing is, I'm ready to use IPv6 today (and am using it a little through a tunnel broker), but there's no indication from my ISP that they ever have any plan to turn on IPv6 in their routers. The only U.S. ISPs I've heard of who are planning to test IPv6 are Comcast and Earthlink.

Re:Assignment efficiency (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33938658)

From what I've read, the internet back-bone is ready for IPv6, it's just the ISPs that need to start using it.

I know my ISP is handing out IPv6 addresses. Charter Comm. They do get routed to a broker, but if I do a tracert ipv6.google.com I get several hop responses from my ISP with valid public IPv6 addresses before going to a broker, then google.

I even get a DNS name a long with my IPv6 IP. Bit Torrent even starts using IPv6 when I hook up this way. Yay for no port forwarding!

The best part is I don't even need to setup anything. A 100% fresh Win7 install, plug into my cable modem, and IPv6.Google.com works instantly.

Alas, I can't use it though. My ISP still limits my cable modem to only respond to the first MAC address it picks up on the network. Once I get DD-WRT on my Netgear 3700(it's still very buggy), I will let my router talk to the modem and my router can handle IPv6 on my network.

Re:Assignment efficiency (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 years ago | (#33937836)

The thing is, they will become completely worthless shortly afterward. You can only bid the last bottle of water up so high when there's a huge crystal clear lake just a short hike away.

Re:Assignment efficiency (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 4 years ago | (#33937954)

Um, assuming my numbers are correct (which was subjective given the size of the company), we're talking about an allocation of 0.000244140625 of the assigned block. You're telling me that even with a portion of that ratio being recycled we can't squeeze out several years worth of IP assignments?

Additionally, another solution would be to start issuing /25, or /26's instead of 24's because I know of plenty of companies that use them have only used maybe 3-4 of them for various things with the rest of them left unused.

Re:Assignment efficiency (1)

ADRA (37398) | about 4 years ago | (#33938068)

Sorry, before someone else jumps down my throat about how BGP would blow up due to increased routing fragmentation, I mean that BGP routed traffic remains on /24 increments but that ISP's who are internally routing amongst data centers / etc.. internally segment on the smaller increments for their own hosted IP's blocks so that subscribers using ISP/provider blocks aren't being wasted carelessly.

Re:Assignment efficiency (1)

JSBiff (87824) | about 4 years ago | (#33938156)

They expect to allocate all 6 /8 blocks available to them for allocation by sometime next year. 6 of them. So, let's say there's 6 more blocks worth of 'reclaimable' addresses - at the present rate of demand/consumption, you would also expect them to run out in less than a year, yes? Even if there were 10 or 12 blocks of reclaimable addresses, again, that only delays the inevitable - there's simply not enough addresses to keep up, indefinitely into the future, with the growth in demand around the world.

IPv6 on the other hand, gives you 128-bits of address space. It's pretty inconceivable that 128-bits will be exhausted in any foreseeable timeframe. 128 bits is a really astronomically (literally) huge number.

Re:Assignment efficiency (1)

stevelinton (4044) | about 4 years ago | (#33938640)

It's pretty inconceivable that 128-bits will be exhausted in any foreseeable timeframe. 128 bits is a really astronomically (literally) huge number.

It seemed inconceivable that IPv4 would run out, or that 640K wouldn't be enough (well maybe not that one). I'm curious -- can anyone see a way that IPv6 address space could run out in (say) 50-100 years?
It really does seem inconceivable to me, but I have learnt to be very skeptical about this feeling.

Humbug! (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about 4 years ago | (#33937438)

It will pass silently. Just like the Millennium Bug.

Re:Humbug! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33938080)

If you think the "Millennium Bug" passed silently, it's a safe bet that you weren't working in the industry at the time.

Re:Humbug! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33938620)

And how many Y2K bugs have you fixed in the 90's?

Not this shit again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33937650)

This is the nerd equivalent of 'peak oil'. Shut the fuck up. Just like IE6 and Windows XP is still around, you will be using IPv4 for years to come.

Cue the Ostriches (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 4 years ago | (#33937786)

We will just NAT the NATed NATed NeTed NAT and run the entire internet on a single IP address TRA-LA!

Then there's the free market cool-aid crowd who can't see why bidding wars driving the price of a single IP into the thousands a year is a big deal.

Next up, the "It's so HAAAAAAAAaaaaaRRRRRRRRrrrd!" crowd who don't understand why they should burn their geek card for saying that. That and their close relatives who still haven't realized that very simple firewall rules grant 100% of the security NAT does.

Re:Cue the Ostriches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33938444)

When can we stop pretending that a government controlled monopoly is a free market?

Re:Cue the Ostriches (1)

j h woodyatt (13108) | about 4 years ago | (#33938692)

Probably around the same time we stop pretending that a toothless regulatory agency staffed via a revolving door to the regulated industry is functionally equivalent to a Stalinist command and control economy.

Easy solution (-1, Redundant)

houghi (78078) | about 4 years ago | (#33937852)

There are plenty of companies who have a /30 range and only use 2 addresses. So take those away and give them a /31 address. That way we can give another company a /31 range and both companies have two addresses to their disposal. Right?

Re:Easy solution (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 years ago | (#33938150)

Actually there are plenty of places where a /30 is used where they could go address less and use a loop back IP only so that gear goes from a /30 per point to point interface to a /32 for the whole box. In any event it's just wasted time we can not reclaim things fast enough to matter just move on to IPv6 and be done with it.

Re:Easy solution (2, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | about 4 years ago | (#33938434)

No. IPv4 specifies that the host portion of the address with all-0's is the network address, and the all-1's address is the broadcast address for that subnet. If you assign these to an actual host, you will break things very badly. Since a /31 would contain only address 0 and 1, it has no addresses that can be assigned to a host. The /30 subnet is the smallest block that can be given out.

How about the DoD gives some blocks back? (0, Redundant)

Khopesh (112447) | about 4 years ago | (#33938120)

Hasn't the US Department of Defense fully moved to IPv6? It shouldn't need any more than a single block (really, not even that much) of IPv4, yet they still have the following eleven /8 blocks: 7, 11, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 214, and 215. The US Army also has 6 and 55 and the US Postal Service (USPS) has 56. That's a LOT of unused IPs.

Re:How about the DoD gives some blocks back? (1)

DeadBeef (15) | about 4 years ago | (#33938442)

We have assigned 14 /8's _this year_ so far, so if you magically get all of those back, you don't even get a years delay. I guess when you say 'That's a LOT of unused IP's' the missing information is that 'We go through a LOT of IP's'.

Spend that effort and money on deploying IPv6 instead.

I have a class b, and it's not being used (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33938204)

I know of a class B address block that is sitting unused. It's a weird dispute - company A received it (I was sysadm then @Company A) However, company A split into two - Company B and Company A. Company B claimed the address block as part of their assets, so I let it go (company A was later bought by company C which was then aquired by company D which encouraged most of A and C to find other opportunities.) A few years after the split - company B closed.

A few years (say, about 10) I start snooping around the net, and lo and behold - my original class B addy space has gone untouched! As it turns out, I now work for Company G, and company B's corp lawyer also works for company G, so I shot him a note. He said two things: 1) Company B still claims it as an asset 2) If I aid him in selling it, I'll get a percentage. Also, I read this as: if I upset the apple cart, my butt will be lawyer grass.

Sooooo... Kind slashdotters - help me make things right. My reading, is that the right thing to do is to contact the number gods, and let them know this addy space is idle. However, as someone who has a keen interest in preserving my own butt, I'd don't want to upset the apple card (see above.)

Comments?

So what? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 years ago | (#33938512)

Seriously, we've had IPv6 stacks and routing on all the major OS and trunk lines since 2000.

So why should we care?

Move to IPv6 already.

It's like people complaining because SUVs are now outlawed due to low mpg, but there are cheap hybrids and cars that get 36 mpg on the market for the past ten years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?