Interop Returns 16 Million IPv4 Addresses 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."
There you go. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually worried that this might be counter-productive. It's going to persuade the let's-wait-before-implementing-IPv6 people to wait a bit longer. Possibly more than it'll save. It'll be reported by the press with a "what were they panicking about?" tone, leading people who don't understand the issues to think of this as a storm-in-a-teacup that'll pass over without them doing anything, just like Y2K did.
IPs! OM NOM NOM NOM (Score:5, Funny)
IP ADDRESS MONSTER HUNGRY!
Well, that was dumb (Score:2)
Not necessiarly (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After the University Of Hawaii began getting Google Over IPv6 in March of 2010, we began noticing problems with user devices on our wireless sending router advertisements and “black-holing” traffic. This problem is, of course made more apparent by initiating Google Over IPv6, which causes significantly more content to be requested by clients over IPv6. Despite first appearances, this is a good thing, since it is a problem that must be faced and dealt with in order to operate a IPv6 network for the near term.
In a nutshell, a “rogue RA” scenario occurs when some device besides an “official” router identifies itself as a router using “router advertisement” ICMP6 messages. Once client hosts see the “rogue” as a router, they may prefer it as their next hop to send traffic out to the Internet.
This can result in one of two problems:
These issues are not IPv6 specific problems. There are numerous similar problems that occur in IPv4 networks, on 802.11 “WiFi” networks, and on Layer 2 switched wired networks.
The best-known cause of rogue RAs on an IPv6 network comes from Windows Vista hosts with Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) enabled. Other causes are probably common, since the “personalities” of rogue RAs seem to differ widely.
And there also appears to be a problem with enabled 6to4 tunnels advertising to the network that they are willing to act as virtual gateways.. Not exactly my idea of 'extremely good'
Re: (Score:2)
Because the registries are driven by bottom-up policy processes in which all the stakeholders who care to get involved have a hand in determining the right way to distribute addresses. Current thinking is that addresses are a global public good, and should be distributed based on responsible and efficient need, not based on depth of pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Probably because I've never used it :)
Not that it matters, all of these sites will work just fine with NAT..
It's the p2p and VPN type apps that really need a non-nat address.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: home (ab)use not doable? eh? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
we could skip going to IPv6 and stick with mass IPv4 NATing.
Bite your tongue.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
And what if you wanted, say, to ssh into the phone?
This may be a weird idea for dumbphones, but things like n900 are just subnotebooks with phone capability.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it depends on your cellphone plan. Many data plans often give you just a private IP address, NAT'ed or double-NAT to the Internet. Considering most of the usage is just connecting to a remote server and getting information, this works fine. Many cheaper plans also go through a transparent HTTP proxy as well which caches and reduces image quality.
Even the mobile stick/pods/hub plans are often NAT'ed. If you want to do VPN, there's often a VPN tier of service that gets you a real live IP address. If
ARIN, you aren't fooling anyone (Score:2)
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.
Back in April I did the same thing ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are actually reasons behind this. I've got a /29 from Charter Business myself, but this is why it is the way it is, based on my experience as a former Charter engineer.
In the days of old, customers were assigned their statics in WAN-side way as you describe. My parents used to have a static assigned to them from a WAN block on their CMTS. This was great because whatever allocation assigned was very efficiently used. Granted, this was back when nodes were combined 4:1 or greater on the small CMTS that was being used. A uBR7246 with 1x6 cards in the day could easily route traffic for over 48 cable nodes, at 2:1 combining on the upstreams, and 12:1 on the downstreams. (A whopping 150mbps for 48 nodes ... laugable today).
It wasn't all that long ago I remember some towns sharing a single downstream port. Now, enter node splits, and combining gets down to 1:1 in many cases. Even with a much larger CMTS (uBR10012 vs. uBR7246), it can't handle the same number of nodes. With redundancy failover switchboxes, there are only 35 downstreams per box (assuming 5x20 cards).
Now a problem exists as soon as the box's capacity is reached. If I need to split your node and move it to another CMTS to increase your available bandwidth, I need to coordinate with everyone who is moving who has a WAN side IP and tell them that their IP address is going to change on whatever date. This turns into an incredible shitstorm when one person stammers their feet and cries up the escalation chain and then delays necessary work because they bitch. Then capacity continues to be in hell until the move is finally approved. Then, there are the customers who ignore your voicemail and phone calls and then cry for a credit because they didn't pay attention until the move date.
So now what everyone is doing in order to make this easier is to assign you a /30 or /29 or whatever which you get from your modem. The modem sends that assignemnt up via RIP and it gets redistributed into the network. Now, it doesn't matter what town you're in or what CMTS you're on. Note splits and changes can essentially happen without you ever having to renumber your side. With the growing demands on bandwidth, it's not unheard of that you could move a couple of times per year, depending on the scope of the engineering changes.
Seems wasteful, but that's the sense behind it.
IPv6 NOW or death to the internet(s) (Score:2)
There are more organizations that should (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
TCP/IP is routable, period. The "non-routable" blocks are simply IP addresses that can't be used across the Internet but will still work fine in an internal network. HP's users might need to talk to each other, but there's no reason for me to able to ping all of them from home.
I plan to skip IPV6 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean IPV6.1
Re: (Score:2)
IPV6 never caught on, like Windows Vista caught on. Better to wait for IPV7.
Wait for the first service pack too... IPv7, Service Pack 1
Credit where credit is due to TFA... (Score:3, Informative)
"ARIN warns that Interop's return will not significantly extend the life of IPv4. ARIN continues to emphasize the need for all Internet stakeholders to adopt the next generation of Internet Protocol, IPv6."
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later, hoarders are going to scalp them.
Re:Delaying the inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice for you. We are.
I work for a major telecom company. We are scant months away from all of our TV customer's STBs exclusively talking ipV6. Internet cable modems will be following next year.
Some of us - many, in fact - _are_ very near to that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not bring cold hard logic and rules to a place that clearly should be fluffy, full of pink clouds and unicorns prancing around pooping rainbows.
- Fluffeh
Re: (Score:2)
At some point the powers-that-be will simply say "you're not using it, give it back"
Which powers would that be? The various registries can appeal to the community, but when it comes down to it, every ISP picks which routes they accept.
If you want to force the hands of the ISPs, you need legislation. World-wide, if you want it to be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Altruism doesn't exist. They lose nothing and gain goodwill.
Re: (Score:2)
They lose IPv4 address space. But I guess thay've made a cost analysis and concluded that the goodwill outweights that loss. I think it's awesome nonetheless (even though the win is negligible).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Delaying the inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the IPv4 space runs out, it is likely that there will be a secondary market for /24's. That /8 could make quite a bit of money if carved into /24's. It would also be another 65k routes for the global routing table, which would be no fun at all.
We should appreciate their gesture; they did lose something and we are all slightly richer because of what they did.
Probably awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 in (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
We had to disable all IPv6 in the building and I 'accidentally' dropped the airport when reaching up to 'reconfigure' it.
My lack of adoption is my lack of confidence in an ipv6 firewall do a good job of blocking malicious attempts at access if everything has a publicly
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Private IPv6 IP ranges have been designated:
Link local addresses: fe80::* - automatically self-assigned by an IPv6 device, exist even if the device has a global address
Unique local addresses: fc00::* / fd00::* - manually assigned, globally unique but not routable on the internet
Re:Probably awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 curre
Also it doesn't have to be a hard switch (Score:5, Informative)
IPv4 and IPv6 can peacefully coexist. They already do on many networks and you don't know it. As I noted in another post, in domains this already happens. If you have Windows Server 2008 or R2 and Vista or 7 they'll just start doing IPv6 by themselves. When I look at the DNS for our AD a lot of hosts have A and AAAA records. You don't even know which IP you are using when you key in their name to ask for them. We didn't set any of this up, the OSes just have IPv6 stacks on them enabled and it all happens.
Now not everything is nearly that simple, of course, but it demonstrates how easily they can coexist. So what is more likely to happen is that as IPv4 runs out and places hit in to limits, IPv6 will be used for new stuff. Maybe all new desktops are IPv6 only. Old equipment will keep operating on IPv4 and servers, that have both 4 and 6 can talk to both. As time goes on the IPv4 will become less and less important. Equipment will get replaced and eventually it'll be all IPv6, save for a smattering of legacy systems here and there.
It is not a situation where you have to switch from 4 to 6. You can do both at the same time, no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
He said in his post, that's when XP stops getting support. Since XP is the biggest OS that doesn't do IPv6, telling people to fuck off and get a new computer the same time their OS stops getting support seems okay.
Well, except for your point about running out of addresses well before then. That might be an issue...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
XP does support IPv6 and you can do IPv4 to 6 proxy conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
XP can do IPv6. It can't do DNS over IPv6 (but that needs v4 connectivity just to the next router), and you need two sockets instead of one to listen. Neither of these is a blocking issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is because Microsoft is still 80+% of the market. No matter the progress of Mac OSX (with its poor implementation of IPv6 until 10.6), Linux or the server OS market, Windows still dominates and without Microsoft's co-operation any attempt to throw the switch to IPv6 is futile and far more liable to cause customer grief.
Not defending Microsoft or their position, but it's a reality that we have to deal with. Legacy exists and cannot be dismissed as a trivial part of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? Mos
Re: (Score:2)
No, I haven't been able to find:
In fact, all I've been able to find that aren't PCs/servers, are tremendously expensive Cisco business class routers and homebrew l
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DSL bridging modem that supports IPv6
If you're just bridging, then it doesn't need to support IPV6.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Even the Apple Airport Extreme does 5 GHz, IPv6, and 6to4. Basic research.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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 yea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Or, you could buy an Apple Airport Extreme [apple.com], which features built-in disk and printer sharing, dual radios, and full IPv6 support, and is made for very easy configuration by any Mac or Windows home user.
No, it's not a $30 device, but you obviously didn't do your research. The Airport Extreme is made for the people you specify, and does feature full IPv6 support. It will even setup a 6to4 tunnel for you if you don't have native IPv6 support from your ISP, and then provide autoconf data to any IPv6 enabled
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
may be years and may have tons of changes, ala N draft VS N spec
The IPv6 [wikipedia.org] spec was actually published in 1998.
Thought most of us (ie those of us who are in a business with its own IPv4 address, or who's ISP already has addresses) probably will get on fine without IPv6 for a few more years, so I suppose it's the new guys who can't get online without it that are going to be driving IPv6. As more and more people are v6 only, then others online will have to get compatible to be able to communicate with them.
I'm not fussed about upgrading yet, though currently I'm only rentin
Re:Probably awhile (Score:5, Funny)
If only we had known about IPv6 ahead of time! Why did they spring it on us nowwwww!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
If you were Steve Ballmer, or even an ordinary Microsoft shareholder, you'd absolutely *LOVE* IPV6 to come along and obsolete XP. Think of the millions of people who would have to buy new computers == more "Windows Tax" royalties for MS.
Re:Probably awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably awhile (Score:5, Informative)
The ASICs and the entire routers for that matter in the usual suspects (Cisco, Juniper & Co) have had stable IPv6 support for more than 7-8 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
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 upgrad
If by "they" you mean the greedy... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No need to worry, actually. It won't take longer than it took the US to switch to metric. People will just realize it's a better option and start using it voluntarily.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Who are you, the owner of rackspace?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are (Score:3, Informative)
by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are other things like games and more that double or mass NATing can mess up.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 commun
The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because an "interactive protocol" would not work. The core idea of IP is to allow global communications using only local decisions, for any machine connected to the internet you can route any packet with just a small list of "routes" which tell you which port to send the packet and the values in the packet header itself.
Adding some sort of negotiation phase would mean that this information would have to be saved, you have to record the fact that a successful "connection" had been made and what sort of co
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T and Level 3 charge money for addresses. Why can't Nortel?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, if they do the right thing, that's one more month...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)