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!

Interop Returns 16 Million IPv4 Addresses

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the share-the-wealth dept.

The Internet 270

klapaucjusz writes "Every discussion about IPv4 address exhaustion prompts comments about whether Apple (or MIT, or UCB, or whoever) needs all of those addresses. Interop has set the example by returning 16 million IPv4 addresses to the ARIN pool, extending the IPv4 address exhaustion deadline by a whole month."

cancel ×

270 comments

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

Delaying the inevitable (1, Insightful)

Gonzoisme (1023685) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968634)

How long are they going to keep this up for? Jeez.

Re:Delaying the inevitable (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968682)

Sooner or later, hoarders are going to scalp them.

Re:Delaying the inevitable (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968698)

How long are they going to keep this up for? Jeez.

Yes, but this at least gives people an extra month to make sure everything is ready to go.

It's actually refreshingly nice to see that for once, a company has turned around and said: "I know this is ours, but we aren't using it. Someone else might need it more. Here you go chaps!".

Have you heard of Altruism [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Delaying the inevitable (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968714)

How long are they going to keep this up for? Jeez.

Yes, but this at least gives people an extra month to make sure everything is ready to go.

But we are nowhere near that. We are not even starting.

Re:Delaying the inevitable (1, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968816)

We've known this was coming for years. Do you really think adding on another month is going to do a single thing?

Re:Delaying the inevitable (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968858)

It pushed any problems a month into the future.

Re:Delaying the inevitable (3, Informative)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969608)

We've known this was coming for years. Do you really think adding on another month is going to do a single thing?

Yep, it will add another month. That is a single thing.

Re:Delaying the inevitable (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969556)

It's actually refreshingly nice to see that for once, a company has turned around and said: "I know this is ours, but we aren't using it. Someone else might need it more. Here you go chaps!".

At some point the powers-that-be will simply say "you're not using it, give it back"

Probably awhile (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968900)

If you don't understand the rather complex issues in converting everything over to IPv6, you might want to look in to it. On every level there are issues that have to be addressed. Some of them just cost money, some of them take work, etc.

So a simple example, but a big issue, is that of high end routers. They don't do routing in software, it isn't like they have a general purpose CPU that handles all the routing. They have one, but it is limited in power and is just for control. The routing itself is handled by ASICs. That is for speed reasons, only way to get data around that fast. Like all ASICs they do only what they were designed for. Ok well that means you have have a bigass router that can't handle IPv6. Sure technically you can upgrade the software and turn it on, but that hits the CPU. If anything more than a small amount of flows starts happening, the router crashes. You have to get a new router, that can do IPv6. Fine and well, but that costs a lot of money. These can be 7-8 figure devices. You don't just run out and buy all new ones all the time.

There are also software issues. Not everything handles IPv6 well. A major stalling point is Windows XP. It can have IPv6 added to it, but it doesn't support it by default. No problem on Vista and 7, but there's still a good amount of XP systems floating about. That'll change with time, but right now if ISPs just go IPv6 and fuck over their XP customers, well people get mad.

IPv6 is just going to be a gradual thing. Slowly more and more things will support it, it'll be enabled in more and more places. There isn't going to be a "We stop using IPv4 now and switch to IPv6 now," day, it'll just be a case that IPv6 will get rolled out everywhere. As that happens, you'll start to see IPV6 only services, or cheaper IPv6 services. Your ISP may offer you as many IPv6 addresses as you'd like to have for no cost, or IPv4 addresses at $10/month. Cheaper shared webhosts may do dedicated IPv6 addresses per site, but only one IPv4 address per server. As time goes on, people will probably stop bothering with the IPv4 stuff. New OSes may ship with it turned off by default, and eventually without it at all.

It will take time though. That is the only way it'll happen. Only in the fantasy world of geeks can it just be a switch that gets flipped tomorrow and everyone changes over.

Re:Probably awhile (3, Interesting)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969038)

On the smaller scale (home) end of that router thing - even my recently purchased Linksys wireless access point / router doesn't do IPv6. I needed (wanted) a dual radio model so I could segregate my 802.11n devices onto 5 GHz from the 802.11g only devices (which I left on 2.4 GHz). Doing so gets better throughput for the n devices. But I was unable to find an affordable model which both had two radios AND supported IPv6. I imagine I'll have to be upgrading this device way before it is well used just to get the IPv6 support. You'd think devices you buy now would all support IPv6 out of the box - but you do still have to be careful and check into it first.

We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 in (3, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969168)

We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 inside to make it easier to move over and less the cost of having to buy new printers, wifi AP's, home media stuff , and more.

Do you real want a printer to have a global IP? do you want buy a newer printer / copiers just for IPv6? the high end ones cost alot.

Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969256)

There is some stuff like that. That is the basic idea of 6to4. Allows IPv6 to be routed over IPv4.

In the case of printers what you might do is use print servers. If you have new desktops that are IPv6 only, due to lack of IPv4 addresses, you have your servers run IPv6 and IPv4 and your old printers run IPv4 only. Desktops communicate to the server, server to the printers, nobody ever notices a difference.

I suspect IPv4 will be around for a very long time, even after most things are IPv6.

Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969386)

My printer (a ~$100 Cannon) actually does IPv6. My current router build does not. I'm not sure about my Xbox And the Windows XP computers might present a problem.

Re:Probably awhile (4, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969212)

> There isn't going to be a "We stop using IPv4 now and switch to IPv6 now,"

And that EXACTLY is the fucking problem.

Numerous countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic) can, _gasp_, educate people to switch from driving from the left hand side to the right hand side so that there are minimal migration problems, but yet everyone is too fucking lazy to coordinate the inevitable from IPV4 to IPV6.

Set a date. Educate consumers. And DO IT already, say ~ Aug 2014, when WinXP stops receiving security updates.

This isn't just going to magically happy when people get around to it...

Re:Probably awhile (2, Insightful)

MeatBag PussRocket (1475317) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969384)

its more than just people, its businesses, and you frankly arent understanding just how big those cogs are. there are also "unknown unknowns" here. even on a small scale (under 1000 users, say) an IP migration can be a *very* complicated and especially when you get to the level of 2nd or 3rd tier providers the amount of preparation that needs to be done just to THINK about what would be required to PLAN such a move is staggering. this doesnt even get into the application layer. most applications dont currently support IPv6 and many corporations dont upgrade main line of business applications regularly. some of the companies i work with use software that is from the mid 90's and a few have stuff thats copyright 1988. For many of these businesses the cost of upgrading the hardware and/or software is prohibitive. But cost is a whole other can of worms, you try convincing a small business owner or CFO or CEO that they need to spend money they dont have on something they know they need but isnt killing them now. beyond that theres yet other issues as well.

i'm not saying you're wrong, people DO need more education on the matter and we do need to start making these changes ASAP but the going is not as easy as "RTFA and make a change"

Re:Probably awhile (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969546)

Oh yes we should co-ordinate everything around Microsoft's time. No offense but why that date? Why should we have to wait till 2014 when people have been predicting for a long time that we're going to run out of IPv4 addresses by the middle of next year?

Re:Probably awhile (1)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969284)

In what (fantasy?) world of yours is this a new issue where someone expects to 'flip the switch tomorrow'?

Who in their right mind has been buying new IPv4-only gear in the past few years? All of my day-to-day machines, including my router, are waiting for my ISP to say "we're ready for IPv6". Aren't yours?

A.

Re:Probably awhile (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969346)

Mine personally? No, my wireless router is IPv4 only. Didn't check when I bought it. My reciever is IPv4 only. Not a real big deal, it doesn't have to be on the network, but there you go. Got it just a year ago, but IPv6 wasn't an option. My Blu-ray player is also IPv4 only. That one is on the net, and gets used a lot. Maybe it could be changed, it does get firmware updates regularly, but I don't know if they can change that. My cable modem I don't know though the cable company actually owns it.

At work? Mostly. Our university spent 8 figures not long ago to upgrade the entire core, access, and edge of the network to IPv6 capable hardware. Was very expensive. Please remember when you are talking enterprise hardware you don't replace it every year, it stays in place. These were Cisco 6500s that were 8ish years old. Had to get new supervisor modules for all of them, which cost a lot. Some other routers just had to be replaced outright. I think it is all IPv6, we route it, but who knows? Some of it may have been missed.

However the level I was talking about was ISPs. These massive things. An ISP may have some older Juniper routers that are great at IPv4, but would need expensive upgrades, or perhaps even total replacements, to do IPv6. This isn't to mention management and monitoring software, firewalls, and so on. All of it may need upgrading or replacing to support IPv6 and none of it is at all cheap.

That would be why your ISP does not do IPv6. It isn't being malicious, it is a matter of money.

Re:Probably awhile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969372)

...ever looked at those v3 iphones? Yep - no ipv6 support

Re:Probably awhile (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969472)

Who in their right mind has been buying new IPv4-only gear in the past few years? All of my day-to-day machines, including my router, are waiting for my ISP to say "we're ready for IPv6". Aren't yours?

No, I haven't been able to find:

  • DSL bridging modem that supports IPv6
  • Cable modem that supports IPv6
  • Load balancing router that supports IPv6
  • 5 GHz a/n access point that supports IPv6

In fact, all I've been able to find that aren't PCs/servers, are tremendously expensive Cisco business class routers and homebrew linux running on certain Linksys devices.

Re:Probably awhile (2, Informative)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969580)

DSL bridging modem that supports IPv6

If you're just bridging, then it doesn't need to support IPV6.

Re:Probably awhile (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969584)

The Linksys E3000 supports IPv6 with simultaneous 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz. I'm lazy to find the rest for you but it's obvious that you haven't looked hard enough,

Re:Probably awhile (3, Funny)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969382)

So, this is my fantasy world... bring on the IPv6 stuff .................. and the girls. Lots of girls that speak geek.

Bring it. BRING IT NOW!!

Re:Probably awhile (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969404)

That's well understood, but over the last TEN YEARS it should have been possible to get all of the needed hardware within the normal depreciation cycle. Nobody can legitimately claim to have been blindsided by this. The projected exhaustion date hasn't actually changed all that much over that decade or so. If they're just now looking at upgrading, they will pay the significant cost of ignoring small problems until they become big problems.

But yeah, now that they've ignored the inevitable for the last 10 years it's going to take a lot more than just flipping a switch to get v6 going.

Re:Probably awhile (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969630)

Well I can't speak for businesses old dude (wow, a four digit ID, I thought you guys were all dead? I keed) I CAN speak for the home users which is what I primarily get my pay from, and the simple fact is there really aren't any friendly IPV6 routers at anywhere near a reasonable price point. As it is now you can get a $30 IPV4 router that is set up FOR home users, simple for them to operate, made for things like streaming media, etc, or you can buy a $100+ SMB router that does NOT have the home features, isn't really made for them, and is overall a bigger PITA with less features that they want/need and more features that they don't.

So you can blame the manufacturers for the trainloads of eWaste we are gonna have if we don't have a mandatory 6to4 converter built into every home cable and DSL modem in the country. Also ALL of those modems are gonna have to be shitcanned, as I just got a new Motorola from my ISP two months ago and guess what? As far as I can tell there is NO IPV6 support even on the newer ones. Then of course you are gonna have to figure in huge chunks of the network failing. Why do you ask? Simple. All that network and backbone in the "flyover" states? Guess who runs that? Good old boys that cut their teeth on Unix and DOS and don't know jack about troubleshooting IPV6. Thanks to all the outsourcing young blood just isn't going into the boring IT jobs anymore, and many of the old guys running things now will either have to start from scratch or retire, and I wouldn't be surprised if many just choose the latter than deal with the BS.

so either way it is gonna be a fucking mess. They SHOULD have been teaching IPV6 in every Vo Tech and CS class for a decade now, but that just wasn't done, now you have older and older workers doing more and more with less and less and IPV6 is gonna be a BIG change. Thing that would have taken minutes to fix in IPV4 are gonna takes days simply because the experience isn't there. Believe me man, when it comes it WILL be a clusterfuck, mark my words.

Re:Probably awhile (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969478)

These can be 7-8 figure devices. You don't just run out and buy all new ones all the time.

If only we had known about IPv6 ahead of time! Why did they spring it on us nowwwww!!!!

Re:Probably awhile (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969544)

Theres also the issue that many Vista and 7 installations have IPv6 turned off, because it can cause bizarre issues (ie, it tries to reach a domain controller via an IPv6 AAAA record, except the server doesnt have one. Whoops!).

If by "they" you mean the greedy... (2, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969196)

...I agree completely. Why *does* MIT need a contiguous 16 million addresses, plus more than a dozen more class B spaces (each 65,000+ addresses, for a total of more than a million addresses, not including their class A space.)

The answer is: they DON'T. Nor does Halliburton, Eli Lilly, Prudential Insurance (!!!), or Ford. In fact, they've done a great job of proving they don't, by running out and securing a number of class B address spaces in other class A/B octets when they should have just given out subnets of their existing Class A.

Even HP, Apple, and IBM are standing on shaky ground; they're international corporations whose primary business is at least somewhat internet related, but they still don't need 16 million addresses in one space.

Re:Delaying the inevitable (2, Funny)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969280)

Apparently, if IPv4 addresses keep getting returned at an average rate of at least 16,000,000 per month, they could keep this up forever.

Commendable, but (1)

quicks0rt (983047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968642)

Please, just let it run out already.

There you go. (4, Funny)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968670)

Problem solved!

Re:cheap boots. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968794)

Problem is solved! What is there...
Welcome to our website:http://www.uggsexboots.com, professionalsnow boots [uggsexboots.com] online mall, provide high quality service to the parity

women boots,ugg boots,boots on sale,cheap ugg boots,snow boots,winter boots [uggsexboots.com] .

Re:There you go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969674)

You Anthropogenic Global IP Address Shortage supporter you! Everything is perfectly fiDHCP lease expired

IPs! OM NOM NOM NOM (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968678)

IP ADDRESS MONSTER HUNGRY!

Re:IPs! OM NOM NOM NOM (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968906)

IPs are a sometimes food...

Plenty more (1)

Quicksilver (41094) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968696)

Nortel that is now nothing but a bankrupt shell has another 16 million.

Re:Plenty more (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968814)

Nortel that is now nothing but a bankrupt shell has another 16 million.

And the fact they are now 'nothing but a bankrupt shell' is exactly what's going to stop them from being able to take the specific affirmative actions that are required to return IP addresses.

Their creditors are going to want those networks, and therefore, the IP addresses that go with them.

Re:Plenty more (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969074)

Nortel has more than the 47.X class-A that they
        could reasonably give back. They have a sizeable
        flotilla of class-B and class-C networks that
        they acquired through M&A over time as well.

When I worked there, I made more than one attempt
        to see if we could give some of it back. But
        alas, internal politics were an insurmountable
        force.

Re:Plenty more (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969736)

I'm going by what's on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] so please correct me, but class A is around 16 million addresses? Well they're currently going through one class A ( \8 block ) a month so it wouldn't exactly buy much extra time.

Re:Plenty more (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968834)

the USA that is now nothing but a bankrupt shell has another one and a half billion of them.

Re:Plenty more (1)

Gerald (9696) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969348)

AT&T and Level 3 charge money for addresses. Why can't Nortel?

Re:Plenty more (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969418)

OK, if they do the right thing, that's one more month...

Real cause (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968704)

ARIN is the actual cause of this problem, if IP allocation were governed for market forces instead of some dudes that demand paperwork and some justification, then IPv6 would be the response to the rising cost of IPs

Re:Real cause (1)

gclef (96311) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968830)

ARIN is neither the cause, nor the solution. ARIN is a community organization, so their policies are only what the greater ARIN community (ie, the present IP space users) ask for. Until the ARIN community asks for market-cost based allocation, ARIN won't do it. The converse is also true: the reason ARIN *isn't* using a market-cost based allocation system is that the actual users of IP space don't want it to be that way.

Re:Real cause (2, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968948)

if IP allocation were governed for market forces instead of some dudes that demand paperwork and some justification...

What are you talking about? IP allocat is governed by market forces.

Who do YOU think ARIN is?

Hint: ARIN is an industry organization whose members are the ISPs and resource holders in North America.

Also, without ISPs all over the world recognizing ARIN's allocations, ARIN has no power of enforcement of its wishes, it simply does what its officers elected by the broader community of ISPs agree that they want ARIN to do.

The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. (2, Interesting)

Lanboy (261506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969498)

Stupid fuckers could have made the protocols interactive, but no, they had to try to be clever and redesign the whole thing, so we will need to run dual stack for 5-10 years. No bugs gonna be there. They were just pissy because no one liked OSI CLNS . Which would be just as easy to switch over to, by the way. How many addressable addresses does IPX/SPX have? Lets Dual stack that instead, just to fuck them.

My only bitter pleasure will be watching microsoft networking melt down. Dynamic DNS? No way bitch, ip6 addresses handed out by the router. Of course they will just continue to cheat and use NetBui with a local global catolauge server, like they do now.

Re:The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. (2, Informative)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969600)

Stupid fuckers could have made the protocols interactive, but no, they had to try to be clever and redesign the whole thing, so we will need to run dual stack for 5-10 years. No bugs gonna be there. They were just pissy because no one liked OSI CLNS . Which would be just as easy to switch over to, by the way. How many addressable addresses does IPX/SPX have? Lets Dual stack that instead, just to fuck them.

My only bitter pleasure will be watching microsoft networking melt down. Dynamic DNS? No way bitch, ip6 addresses handed out by the router. Of course they will just continue to cheat and use NetBui with a local global catolauge server, like they do now.

Speaking of stupid fuckers. Microsoft DDNS works just fine with IPv6 assuming you're using dhcpv6. Netbeui is defunct and has nothing to do with a GC server.

Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968730)

I mean really, as we start running low on addresses, more and more sites will just start NATing. I don't need a globally unique IP, I just need one unique within my network and then I can tunnel it out at the edge.

You fundamentally only need hard addresses for your network edges and that's going to be a finite number of points into the foreseeable future.

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968760)

Who are you, the owner of rackspace?

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (2, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968798)

So because NAT happens to work for you, and your rather basic needs, we should delay the inevitable instead of fixing the fundamental underlying problem.

Got it.

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968868)

So because NAT happens to work for you, and your rather basic needs, we should delay the inevitable instead of fixing the fundamental underlying problem.

Got it.

Yes, well, you just described civilization.

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (3, Funny)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968928)

Given that humans are the fundamental underlying problem, there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for getting rid of them.

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969314)

Given that humans are the fundamental underlying problem, there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for getting rid of them.

Actually, there's plenty of support for that, we call them "missile silos".

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968824)

Right, only criminals need a globally visible IP address for their personal computers, so that they can pirate stuff. As long as you only ever make connections to corporate-owned servers like a good little law-abiding citizen, NAT won't hurt you a bit.

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969124)

Doesn't hurt? Sure it does. NATs, like firewalls - can't handle fragmentation.

by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are (2, Informative)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969248)

by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are other things like games and more that double or mass NATing can mess up.

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969488)

You do know that Y2K was (mostly) a yawn because of a massive push starting in '97 to be ready in time, right?

You also realize you can't just stuff servers behind NAT right? And an awful lot of apps like p2p and VoIP work a lot better without NAT?

Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969696)

So what about Google, Microsoft, Apple, Rackspace, Amazon and the millions of other ISPs, Datacenters, Science stations such as the LHC, etc that all need publicly addressable computers in mass quantities?

It's easy to say that you don't need this and can happily live behind a NAT. That doesn't mean you represent the rest of the internet and it's millions of different use cases most of which do require the internet to work as it was designed.

spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968742)

UCB needs those IPs, let MIT give theirs back!

Fuck Slashdot 2.0 (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968778)

Is anyone else who usually uses the "classic" index on slashdot being defaulted back to this shitty 2.0 crap index, regardless of their preferences?

Re:Fuck Slashdot 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968944)

Yes. I just noticed the switch too. /.'s interface is kind of annoying me lately. Why, for example, can't I have friend bubbles in classic? And does Post Anonymously REALLY have to be in white?

Well, that was dumb (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968792)

Why didn't they wait until the supply/demand curves pushed the price of an IP into the dollar or more range? They could have turned their class A into tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars...

Not necessiarly (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968856)

Internet addresses are more leased than sold. The agencies in control let you use them, they don't give you a deed you get to keep forever. As a practical matter they belong to you because they don't want to cause trouble, but if push comes to shove, addresses can be taken back without compensation.

That may be part of the thought with this. Not only is it altruistic and makes you look good but they may be worried it becomes mandatory later. They worry maybe IANA says "Guess what? We are taking back that block, you've got 1 month to renumber," and it is a big hurry, rather than just doing it and then being in the clear.

Re:Not necessiarly (4, Interesting)

Drew M. (5831) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969112)

Why aren't the leases on internet addresses high enough to convince people to give them back? Price them at a buck a month, and if someone truly can afford to spend $16m a month on a class A, let them. Otherwise they will give them back really fast. What's wrong with a little capitalism?

Wasn't set up that way (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969194)

Remember back when all this was set up the Internet was a toy for academic institutions and so on. The idea of 4 billion computers in the world was unthinkable. So they handed shit out real cheap. One time cost kind of thing, and the big orgs that got on first got 16 million. Nobody thought this was a problem, nobody needed it. The whole reason for a Class A was just to let you subnet up your network to a high degree easily.

Maybe they will start charging or doing something else to put the pressure on but I bet not. You might notice that the "OMG IPv4 is runs outs!!!111" story hits Slashdot a lot, and has been for like a decade. Not only are we coming up with new creative ways to deal with it (classless routing, NAT, etc) but it just isn't as big a deal as it is made out to be. It isn't a thing of we run out and suddenly nobody new can get on the Internet, it is that there are no new assignments to give out, so people will have to make do with what is out there. That can mean more NAT, renumbering, all sorts of shit like that.

For example the university I work at has a private internally routed IP space. It is one of the reserved, "non-routable" spaces like what you see behind a NAT. However internal to campus, it is routed normally. So you can put printers and shit like that on it. Keeps down the usage of public IPs, but computers on campus can talk to those IPs as normal.

Also IPv6 is slowly growing. A big step was with Windows Vista. Windows is still the most used OS, and is likely to stay that way. Windows Vista ships with extremely good IPv6 support and it is turned on by default. Same with Windows 7, of course, Means more and more end users have IPv6 support on their systems. That means a switch over is much easier. Heck you might not even know it. On our domain all the IPv6 enabled systems automatically register their AAAA record as well as their A record. When you request another computer, you don't even know which one is being used to talk to it.

IANA may not have to do anything in the end. IPv6 may slowly rise as IPv4 fades away and there may never be any real problems do to an IPv4 shortage.

Re:Well, that was dumb (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968938)

Ridiculous. That cost is simply going to be passed-on the consumers. They asked for addresses before they had value, now they got it and it's theirs. Period (unless there are clauses in the agreement about having to return the ranges not in use). I unfortunately wasn't that quick and have to pay for a static IP.

This comment was posted using 100% IPv6 and I laugh at your obsolescence (not necessarily true but we're getting there).

Re:Well, that was dumb (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969110)

They could have turned their class A into tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars...

Unlikely. They would have to convince ARIN to allow them to go along with it, in order to have any transfer of addresses acknowledged in the proper places: without that, the only way to distribute IPs would be for them to get into the ISP and DNS business, providing IP and Reverse DNS services to people.

Which could be more expensive than "tens of millions"

Under current policies, they could have revokable sub-delegations of their IP address space acknowledged, if they signed the RSA agreement with ARIN, but to be able to make any type of permanent transfer, they would have to agree to the full RSA, making the IP space no longer "legacy", in other words, current policies would start applying to it, RIR fees, etc

teksavvy wants to do more cable (0, Redundant)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968796)

now this might make it possible

Hardly Significant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968804)

Oh look, we have another 0.004% to work with!

Is it really necessary to bring this up every couple weeks? We know we're going to run out sooner or later; I don't need to read about how our projections were wrong yet again.

Maybe I'll write a story about how I added 16 MB of RAM to my 4 gig system.

Re:Hardly Significant (1)

Dylan16807 (1539195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969098)

.4% And a several percent boost to the free amount.

Start with the cell phone industry. (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968838)

I'm guessing the best place to free up IP4 blocks is with the cell phone industry. They could roll out IP6 and eventually drop IP4 depending on the model of your cell phone (dual IP schemes in place for the transition). That industry changes so rapidly anyways and has the largest consumer share over the personal computer. Plus, cell phone devices centrally managed for the most part anyways. Shouldn't be too difficult of a task. At least, not nearly as difficult as flipping home users and SMBs over to IP6 in the same amount of time.

Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968970)

That only works if the cell phone users don't mind being unable to connect to sites that don't support IPv6 at all - which could include their corporate sites, shopping sites, search engines, map, email, blog, "social" sites.

Dual-IP no NAT schemes only work if you actually have IPv4 addresses - which we are running out of if you haven't noticed already.

Schemes involving NAT "kinda" work, but if people really didn't mind using NAT, then we could skip going to IPv6 and stick with mass IPv4 NATing.

Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (2, Interesting)

Matt_R (23461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969134)

search engines

www.google.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:8004::68

map

maps.google.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:8004::68

email

www.gmail.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:8004::53

"social" sites.

www.v6.facebook.com has IPv6 address 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3

Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969142)

Double NATing is a bad idea. All sorts of strangeness happens when connecting with a dialup VPN connection and whatnot.

Of course, ISPs and data centers should convert to IP6 first. But come client side, I still think cell phones should be converted. A much more doable task in comparison to home use and SMB offices.

And it's not just switching over to IP6. It's all the DNS, OS, and application support that goes along with it. Cell phones are pretty simple devices in comparison. They're centrally administered for the most part from a network side, and the technology has a high turnover. Phones that can't run IP6 will stay on IP4 until they're replaced. At most, 2 years on average. PCs and servers OTOH have a life span ranging in 5 years and beyond. So that's been my personal experience anyways.

Re: home (ab)use not doable? eh? (1)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969334)

Of course, ISPs and data centers should convert to IP6 first. But come client side, I still think cell phones should be converted. A much more doable task in comparison to home use and SMB offices.

If major ISPs deploy IPv6 then homes and SMB offices get it almost automagically these days. I use a he.net tunnel at home and radvd to share it. Everybody who connects to the lan gets a IPv6 addy. No problem. It works on GNU/Linux boxes, Windows boxes, Mac boxes, whatever. Most people visiting don't know and don't care, but it works. If your ISP gives you your pre-configured equipment and you connect to it and it hands you a IPv6 addy then 99% of end-users are all set and we're done. Actually getting ISPs to deploy is the hard part, end users are not.

Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969172)

we could skip going to IPv6 and stick with mass IPv4 NATing.

Bite your tongue.

Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (1)

shitzu (931108) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969154)

at least my cellphone gets an address that is in the NATted private 10.x.x.x range so my provider does not really waste ipv4 public address space.

Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969740)

Sorry, but these types of solutions make sense.

We in the USA, Government and Corporations alike, don't like implementing solutions that make sense.

Coincidently (1)

AfroTrance (984230) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968844)

Yesterday I was cleaning out my cupboard filled with old computer crap and found 16 million IPs. They are on a 5 1/4" floppy. Should I just mail it to ARIN?

Re:Coincidently (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33968980)

You have a 64 meg floppy disc? forget ARIN, sell it to a floppy disc manufacturer... Doh, two decades too late.

Re:Coincidently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969318)

Probably they were compressed.

Re:Coincidently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969744)

It's obviously a *solid state* floppy :P

ARIN, you aren't fooling anyone (1)

Dogun (7502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33968902)

Number Authorities:

Once you run out of IP allocations to hand out (which you have done at an incredible pace), you have two solutions:

A) Force everyone onto IPv6 before they are ready
B) Acknowledge that there is significant underutilisation of existing resources, and that supply/demand are going to encourage the rise of secondary markets.

Bad Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969146)

This move just gives people more reason to procrastinate.

They should have waited until the pool ran out and bad stuff started happening. Then once everyone realizes what needs to be done and gets to work, return the addresses.

There (1)

Masterofpsi (1643965) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969214)

Thus solving the problem once and for all!

Back in April I did the same thing ... (4, Interesting)

hedronist (233240) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969222)

Admittedly it was only a /24 (called a C-net by us geezers), but I had had it since about 1992. That was back in the days you could get a C-net for the asking, and a B-net (a /16 to you youngsters) could be had without too much whining.

I got a nice note back from ARIN saying:

As the popular quote says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. 199.201.131.0/24 has been returned to the pool of available addresses - thanks!

Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. (4, Interesting)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969246)

I have ONE static IP from Comcast Business. This is great; I don't really need more than one, right? Well the problem is they've given me a routed subnet. So for me to get my one IP, they also have to waste these additional IPs:

1. The IP on the WAN side of the router, provided to it by DHCP.
2. Internal network subnet address.
3. The router's internal network address.
4. Internal network broadcast address.

Yes, that means for my ONE static IP, Comcast is wasting four more. I can't help wondering why they built their network this way, rather than simply assigning me the WAN side IP and making sure it doesn't change. But hey, that's Comcast for you.

Who knows how many millions of IPs are wasted through inefficient allocation this way. If I have a block of six IPs it would make administrative sense to do it this way but for one? Come on. :)

Re:Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969364)

your a more on

Re:Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. (1)

Lanboy (261506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969452)

Well, some devices have support for a /31 subnet, that helps a bit. But the problem is usually that the way the cable head end infrasructure works, you are on a shared network, and they roll out a subnet for static ip addresses keyed to mac addresses. So if you are the only static subnet user in the neightborhood, then some addresses are wasted.

IPv6 NOW or death to the internet(s) (1)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969272)

This will not help in the long run, we must all switch to IPv6 immediately or the Internet(s) is going to die. In other news, the sky is about to fall on our head. I've been (ab)using IPv6 for a decade so I can scp stuff between boxen using DNS, and absolutely nothing has changed regarding global deployment during that period - and I doubt it ever will

Re:IPv6 NOW or death to the internet(s) (1)

Lanboy (261506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969502)

MY internet will work fine.

There are more organizations that should (3, Interesting)

Technomancer (51963) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969292)

return their 16M IPv4 addresses, just look at the map
http://xkcd.com/195/
HP, DEC, Ford, Xerox, Bell Labs, Apple, MIT, USPS, DuPont, IBM, General Electric, Boeing, Prudential, Eli Lily, Halliburton.
Why does plane, car, drug or chemical manufacturer or an insurance company need 16M publicly routable IP addresses?
I guess HP has now all the DEC IPs, so they have 32M, WTF!

Re:There are more organizations that should (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969424)

Forget HP, BB&N is a research subdivision of Raytheon, and because they were involved with the early Internet, they have 3 Class A's (4, 8, and 46). 48 million addresses.

Re:There are more organizations that should (1)

glaurungn (1253152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969526)

Forget Raytheron, the US DoD has 11 Class A blocks

Re:There are more organizations that should (1)

Lanboy (261506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969512)

They were handing out class As and Bs like candy back in the day. Obviously if they imagined a day where addresses would be exhausted they woul have added an octet or two to the address and we wouldn't be talking about it.

Re:There are more organizations that should (4, Interesting)

Nelson (1275) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969714)

So if you're a large business, what's the best way to make sure any two devices on your network can easily talk to each other if they need to? Keep in mind that companies like HP and IBM buy other companies on a very regular basis and there are constant collisions with private space when that happens. What's the solution?

The very best solution is to give all the machines unique public IPs that are routable and do your own routing inside your network. A lot more companies than those use that practice.

ip v4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33969332)

I always wondered why nat was not built in.
For example lets say ip address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/192.168.1.102 and its ignored by the routers until the last hop then the XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX is ignored and the internal address is all that's read.

Just seems easier than a whole new address scheme.

My two cents.

Re:ip v4 (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969670)

So you've just essentially proposed a solution which is almost exactly the same as IPv6 address scheme. Why do you think that your scheme isn't going to take a complete change of all equipment? because it uses a numbering system similar to IPv4?

45.x.x.x (1)

w00tsauce (1482311) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969592)

If anyone is wondering interop is 45.x.x.x

I plan to skip IPV6 (3, Interesting)

snsh (968808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33969672)

IPV6 never caught on, like Windows Vista caught on. Better to wait for IPV7.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?