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!

Free IPv4 Pool Now Down To Seven /8s

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the need-to-join-a-new-pool dept.

Networking 460

Zocalo writes "For those of you keeping score, ICANN just allocated another four /8 IPv4 blocks; 23/8 and 100/8 to ARIN, 5/8 and 37/8 to RIPE, leaving just seven /8s unassigned. In effect however, this means that there are now just two /8s available before the entire pool will be assigned due to an arrangement whereby the five Regional Internet Registries would each automatically receive one of the final five /8s once that threshold was met. The IPv4 Address Report counter at Potaroo.net is pending an update and still saying 96 days, but it's now starting to look doubtful that we're going to even make it to January."

cancel ×

460 comments

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

Last IP! (1)

statusbar (314703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397548)

Last IP!!

I Have 2 that I'm not using anymore, perhaps I should put them on ebay? ;-)

Re:Last IP! (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397598)

I got $5 for it.

Re:Last IP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397950)

I got $5 for it.

That's less than what I paid to get some nigger crackhead to suck my dick. Hey it's only gay for the sucker not the suck-ee.

Re:Last IP! (0)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397936)

Sorry, but I think providers will only interrested in blocks of 256 (/24), they are the the smallest blocks that are routable.

Re:Last IP! (1, Insightful)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398356)

Have you not yet upgraded to classless routing protocols? Now just might be the time to do so

Re:Last IP! (1, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398774)

Sure I have, /22, /23 are used all over the place.

But I doubt anyone would except your announcement if it was a /25.

Re:Last IP! (3, Interesting)

Nethead (1563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398396)

I can announce and route down to a /32. It's up to my peers to accept that announcement. Some may and some may not. It depends upon politics, payment, router memory and BOFH whim.

A /24 is commonly the longest network accepted for re-announcement, but that is not a hard rule.

Soo... (2, Interesting)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397552)

So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out?
-Taylor

Re:Soo... (3, Funny)

keeboo (724305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397652)

Dunno... The heat death of the internet?

Re:Soo... (4, Informative)

Konsalik (1921874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397664)

THE INTERWEBZ EXPLODZ!!! Ok no seriously, once ICANN allocates the final blocks the IPv4 space will be declared as "used up" but it is still up to the regional RIRs to *use* those IPs. ie if ICANN issues IPs they are not automatically used. Thus it will still be a while after that when they are really all used up. Even then we could maybe see a sharing of sub-blocks between regional RIRs (?) For example AfriNic will probably have quite a surplus if it receives another /8 range. Lastly there are (not so preferable) technologies available such as NAT to allow the internet to continue functioning as it did (more or less). In the end we will need to move to IPv6.

Re:Soo... (4, Informative)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397898)

it is still up to the regional RIRs to *use* those IPs

Regional Internet Registry.

Re:Soo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34398674)

Somehow the "redundant" mod is fitting...

Re:Soo... (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397948)

Why in the end we will have to move to IPv6 ? Why not now ?

Re:Soo... (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398082)

Some already are, others' aren't. It's not cheap, hence it'll be delayed, as always.

Re:Soo... (2, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398292)

It ain't cheap if you're a major provider, but for the rest of us it is somewhere between dirt cheap to absolutely free.

It WOULD have been cheap or free for the major providers as well had they not spent the last 10 years with their heads buried in the sand. They could have gotten v6 capable routers as part of their normal upgrade cycle.

Re:Soo... (2, Informative)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398456)

It's not just providers. There're enterprises who have some quite expensive routers that don't do v6. Not all home gear does v6; my iPhone 3G doesn't, and I'm pretty sure some of the consoles I have don't do it either. My printer doesn't. There are solutions to this, but that's still more work.

Re:Soo... (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398112)

Why in the end we will have to move to IPv6 ? Why not now ?

Because nobody wants to be on the internet all by themselves.

Re:Soo... (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398680)

It's called dual stack, you have both IPv4 and IPv6. You have more internet then people which only have IPv4. :-)

Re:Soo... (4, Insightful)

mmontour (2208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398278)

"Why not now"? Because slack-ass websites like the one you're currently browsing still haven't bothered to flip on the IPv6 switch. I have IPv6 at home (pretty much plug-and-play; just enable it on the Apple Airport base station and all of the LAN machines pick up an address) and the only site I've found to go to is "ipv6.google.com". OK, there's also a dancing turtle GIF on kame.net, but that doesn't really count.

Interestingly there is an "ipv6.slashdot.org" DNS entry. However it has no IPv6 "AAAA" record, only an IPv4 "A". Seriously guys, WTF? If a techie "News for Nerds" site can't be bothered to make itself available to IPv6 users then there's little hope for the rest of the web.

Re:Soo... (2, Interesting)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398478)

There's ipv6.facebook.com, and that's a pretty major site.

Re:Soo... (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397982)

They'll probably just keep nesting NATs for a while though, unfortunately...

Re:Soo... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398338)

So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out? -Taylor

Good question. Not sure how relevant it is, since we've all been asking that same question for about the last decade worth of "oh noes, we're running out!" threats...

Pretty sure that frozen dogshit running uphill moves faster than any IPv6 transition efforts to date...Maybe not merely threatening to run out and instead actually running out would finally get some movement.

Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397560)

How will I ever be able to use my twittering armchair fart detector?

Re:Oh noes! (4, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397744)

How will I ever be able to use my twittering armchair fart detector?

Well, you'll have to choose between a NAT twittering armchair fart detector and an IPv6 twittering armchair fart detector!

The most surprising turn of events (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397562)

... since the unexpected end of the century in '99.

(What is actually surprising is that the internet still hasn't widely adopted IP6, and ISPs are now turning to ludicrous measures - NAT - to keep avoiding what makes sense.)

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

bbn (172659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397748)

... since the unexpected end of the century in '99.

Quite unexpected considering centuries start at year 1 and end in year 100.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397848)

you forgot year zero (or are you born having 1 year already under your belt?)

Re:The most surprising turn of events (2)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397872)

There is no year zero.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397914)

you forgot year zero (or are you born having 1 year already under your belt?)

He was talking about years and centuries, not about age.
We started counting centuries with the first century (year 1 to 100), then the second century (year 101 to 200) and so on. The twentieth century was from 1901 to 2000. The 21st century is 2001 to 2100, the 3rd millenium (see how we count millenia starting with 1 as well) is 2001 to 3000. The same rules are used for years, centuries, millenia. They all start with 1.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397930)

Gregorian calendar has no year zero. Centuries and millennia end on a zero and start on a 1

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34398078)

That depends - would you consider "church people didn't think through the year 0 issue, so centuries don't follow sensible limits" as a worse bug than "the first century had 99 years"?
I'm a fan of ignoring the contradiction in saying the first century was a year short, just for the convenience of the 20th century actually being [1900,1999] - which gives a perfect overlap with languages that prefer forms like "the nineteen hundreds", just as a bonus.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397972)

That would only work if our calendar system was 0-indexed. It isn't.

Also noteworthy: the traditional 12 hour clock ranges from 1 through 12 and 59/60 instead of 0 through 11 59/60.

You can mentally warp your mind into seeing "12" as an alternative symbol for "0". In the same way, you can say that a century ends at any year you please. But if we're counting years from the start of the Gregorian calendar, then sadly we're not done 100 years until year 101.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

FeepingCreature (1132265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398064)

Let me put it like this. If a convention takes mental warping to persist, and does not have [i]serious[/i] force behind it, then it is either going to die out within one generation or otherwise it is already dead and some people just don't want to acknowledge its demise.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397996)

Depends on what country you are born in, several Asian countries have 100 day celebrations for the children that have reach that plateau. They consider that 100 days and the 9 months in the womb make the child 1 year old at that point.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34398166)

A century is a hundred years, so the years from 1900 to 1999 (inclusive) could also be counted as a century.
Of course, that means the first century includes year -1 ... or that the first and second century have a year of overlap. Oh well, that's still less annoying.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397764)

(What is actually surprising is that the internet still hasn't widely adopted IP6, and ISPs are now turning to ludicrous measures - NAT - to keep avoiding what makes sense.)

Dare I ask... why, pray tell, do you consider NAT to be a "ludicrous" measure? It seems like a pretty sturdy bridge to me. IPv6's slow adoption isn't really surprising to me; it has required code modifications across the board on numerous levels. It has been more of an undertaking than most people realize. On the other hand, apart from a little NAT-trickery to allow hole-punching (which, admittedly, should be have been put in a standard), the large majority of legacy apps continue to work under NAT like they did before. Not so with IPv6, which has been a lot more work to implement. Fortunately, most of that work is behind us, and IPv6 will "soon" be commonplace.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

Formalin (1945560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397824)

NAT is quite the abortion, and is only prolonging the inevitable.

Without it, we'd have switched over long ago.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397880)

And the best part for ISPs is, NAT turns the Internet from its inherent peer-to-peer nature into a client/server architecture where all home users can be relegated to "content consumers" under cover of IP4 address shortages. Score!

Re:The most surprising turn of events (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398480)

Lets say your ISP assigns you 10.0.32.128. Now, kindly tell me how you plan to connect to your home PC from work.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (5, Insightful)

DeadBeef (15) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398696)

What will make it even more fun is if you have two branch offices of the same company connected to the different ISPs getting 172.16.32.66 and 10.0.65.88, how do you set up a VPN between them?

Re:The most surprising turn of events (2, Insightful)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398628)

IPv4 will last us about one and half year. IPv4 will run out next year, the regional registries (RIR's) will run out a number of months later and if you are lucky your provider still has some new IPv4 addresses left for his new customers.

Then your provider can only get new addresses for money from other providers/organisations which want to sell them for money.

The following will happen, first for new customers and eventually for all existing customers.

When we get to a point where your access-provider does not have enough IPv4-addresses you will just get a private IPv4-address through DHCP instead of your public IPv4-address. Probably in the 10.0.0.0/8 range.

You will be stuck behind an IPv4 NAT which sits in the provider network, not at your home. That NAT will be congested, it will be slow.

This means probably no online games and no P2P on IPv4 for you (and other things will break too).

You will however get a complimentary IPv6-block of a size which is atleast a /64, which is has more addresses then the whole IPv4-range.

At the time when this happends, your OS will have IPv6-support and IPv6 will probably be enabled on most of the websites, mailservers and what not. You might need to replace your modem or router though. Maybe you will get a new one from your provider, maybe not, depends on your arraignment.

(kind of useful version of IPv6 in Windows since XP, useful in Windows Vista/7, Mac OS X had the last update recently to fix the last issue, Linux has no problems, even things like Network Manager supports it)

A real IPv4-address will be a privilege (read: you pay extra).

Or when you do what to play games, you might need to get a VPN to somewhere else and pay extra for that service/IP-address.

So when you are stuck behind a IPv4 NAT, websites which don't add IPv6 will also be slow.

When we really run out, I think you all just want to use IPv6 like it was intended.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398744)

It seems like a pretty sturdy bridge to me.

Then frankly, you have simple networking needs. Once things go beyond basic web and email access, NAT ends up being a pain for either the end user or the net code developer, or sometimes both.

Re:The most surprising turn of events (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397974)

I think it is 10% of the provider networks, but it's higher when you are talking about transit providers (what some people call Tier 1 or Tier 2).

Last Post!! (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397574)

IPV6 anybody? (new meme anybody?)

2011 - the year of IPv6 on the desktop! (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397866)

(see subject)

IPv4 is dying - Netcraft confirms it, bla bla...

In the mean while, why not simply create some IP addresses? As long as you keep them to yourself [wikipedia.org] , no-one will complain...

where is ATT and comcast with IPV6? (2, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397600)

where is ATT and comcast with IPV6?

Re:where is ATT and comcast with IPV6? (3, Insightful)

the_macman (874383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397676)

Busy counting their profit and laughing over all the money you think they want to spend on IPV6 upgrades.

Re:where is ATT and comcast with IPV6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397926)

Comcast is supposed to be testing NDS in select markets soon. 6RD and 6to4 are currently being tested.

Re:where is ATT and comcast with IPV6? (1)

Anomalyx (1731404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397978)

Bah, they better be giving discounts to go to IPv6. Many people will need to upgrade routers or OS's because they can't handle IPv6.
Knowing how corrupt big business is, they'll probably do something stupid like give you the option between NAT and IPv6, and tack an extra monthly charge on no matter which one you pick (but of course, an even higher monthly charge if you pick neither). This will do nothing but raise awareness that there are more ISPs out there than just AT&T & Comcast.

Hey stupid, corrupt ISPs! Try this one! $5/mo discount for a couple months to every customer who agrees to permanently switch to IPv6. Can't cost that much out of your 18-light-year-deep pockets, and would actually make customers happy with you... for once...

Re:where is ATT and comcast with IPV6? (4, Informative)

ziggyzaggy (552814) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397902)

status of comcast ip6 http://www.comcast6.net/ [comcast6.net] at&t - lagging http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/102710-att-ipv6.html [networkworld.com]

Re:where is ATT and comcast with IPV6? (1)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398094)

Anybody who uses Comcast can actually manually setup their connection to use 6RD

6to4 is an option as well, but don't use it unless you have to (and you don't) - 6RD was created to address several of the problems of 6to4.

Meh. Allocate 240.0.0.0/4. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397614)

Class E? That "reserved" block, for "future expansion"? That "future expansion" would be now.

There you go, another 16 blocks to break out. Plus the 7 we already have, that makes 385,875,968 addresses left still unallocated. Still over a third of a billion to go, which should be more than enough time for everyone to replace equipment that doesn't support IPv6, and deal with applications like Teredo that leak IPv6 address space across NATs and through VPNs.

Re:Meh. Allocate 240.0.0.0/4. (3, Insightful)

Trolan (42526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397690)

And have to push new TCP/IP stacks for most operating systems to get them to understand that that is now viable space. This would be effort better spent on just going IPv6.

Re:Meh. Allocate 240.0.0.0/4. (2, Insightful)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398150)

And every router. In every office. And every home.

And who knows how many routers would have those addresses hardcoded in hardware.

It's probably just as easy to go IPv6, when you consider the hassles and testing.

Re:Meh. Allocate 240.0.0.0/4. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398326)

Most routers and so on that I see use 10.0.0.0/255 or 169.0.0.0/255, I actually haven't seen a router use 240.0.0.0/4 since the mid 90's.

Seven eights?!? We have PLENTY left!!! (1)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397634)

end of line

NAT! (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397648)

NAT Time!
Granted, it is not a solution for everything, but there are just TONS of networks that could be behind NAT's and don't need anywhere near the IPV4 space they have. I have a feeling NATing will suddenly become a lot more popular.

Re:NAT! (5, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398024)

I'm frankly terrified that the "solution" to this is not to fix the underlying issue, but instead to layer work-arounds on it.

Not to mention, unless I'm much mistaken a NAT can support 65536 connections at maximum (number of valid ports for outgoing connections). A /8 network might be okay, but putting a larger network behind NAT isn't going to help, and you can't layer them (because you still need a port free for the connection). We're going to run out, NAT just delays the inevitable by layering a giant administrative headache on the top.

Re:NAT! (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398682)

Yes, but they can use carrier-grade NAT. You're thinking of the ISP only using one IP to do this. They get 65k ports per IP that they reclaim from giving out to consumers.

Re:NAT! (2, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398748)

The whole thing is a lesson in waste and inefficiency.

Every business that I have ever known, or been involved with its network, was delivered anywhere from 4-32 IP addresses on their T1 lines. Just recently I setup a new business cablemodem connection and they just gave me ,without me asking, 8 IP addresses.

What the heck do I need 8 IP addresses for at a branch office? I don't really know of any businesses that really need a static IP address, much less multiple ones to host multiple publicly addressable servers. Everyone is either using the "cloud" or hosted services at a colo.

Demand is going to change things quite quickly. I expect that the first T1 line that is held up because there is no IP address for it is going to start things rolling. NAT is not a perfect solution and I sincerely doubt a company paying $500+ a month for a T1 is going to settle for being treated that way. Certainly not the IT staff.

Most guys I know are quite reasonable. If any ISP came to me and asked to reduce me down to 1 or 2 IP addresses per branch office or connection I would readily agree.

Now in the colo... that is another matter entirely. Some places I work with actually use a couple hundred different IP addresses for legitimate reasons.

It's all waste. IP address reclamation will get us back at least 40% of the address space.

pudding pudding! pudding pudding! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397660)

konichiwa GIGA PUDDING!! [youtube.com]

Exploits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397686)

Are there any cool exploits which will emerge between the used up pool and IPV6 adoption? Will collisions happen?

I wish we could... (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397716)

Let it burn to the ground and start fresh. IPv256! Decentralized DNS! All the good stuff. Oh well.

Re:I wish we could... (3, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397946)

If we are to do that then the address field of the packet header should be a null-terminated string, not a fixed or limited size.

Note that if you embed the length in the header you have to decide how wide the length field is, which then limits the string length. Though I'll accept arguments to the effect that an 18e18-character address should be enough for anyone.

a gazillion IPv6's spamming? hell no (0, Troll)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397728)

I can handle blocking IPv4 blocks based on geography given I have a US oriented website. But if you guys think you're going to unleash spammers from hell on me with a gazillion IP addresses, think again. As far as I'm concerned, you can give IPv6 to the Russians and Chinese on their own spam network.

The range of IPv4 addresses these people spam from is insane. Just give them back to us and go take IPv6 and spam yourselves into oblivion.

  rd

Re:a gazillion IPv6's spamming? hell no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397844)

What would be _really_ nice is if they allocated them by country or region or whatever.

Yes I know, I'm a horrible person..

And yes I've heard everyone saying that most spam _actually_ comes from North America.. but none the less blocking access to a few select IPs in "that area" of the world helps immensely on the junk traffic.

Re:a gazillion IPv6's spamming? hell no (1)

tonan (325152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397864)

I thought the network portion of the address (the first 64 bits) had bits allocated for region. Couldn't you just filter out those regions? Or deny all and then load allow filters. I don't know, I'm not a network guy.

Re:a gazillion IPv6's spamming? hell no (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398028)

No that did not happen.

Their is no IPv6-regions you speak of, this was an idea which was never implemented.

IPv6 Compatability (4, Funny)

Konsalik (1921874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397738)

Remember before Y2k almost all computer manufacturers placed "Y2k Compliant" or "Y2k Ready" logos on everything from bare computer cases to speakers? Well I cant wait for my "IPv6 Ready" USB keyboard...

Re:IPv6 Compatability (1)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398198)

Don't forget about your IPv6 ready monitor and vacuum. Oh, and don't forget that it will probably be labeled with works with "Windows Vista/7".

indian giver.... (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397758)

Take em back! If we run out just reassign them. Do we really need an internet connected refrigerator to tell us that we need milk and $grocer has the best price?

Re:indian giver.... (1)

Formalin (1945560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397862)

I wouldn't be surprised if the refrigerator has a whole /8, with the... lets say... inefficiency of some of the early allocations.

Re:indian giver.... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397960)

Well, yeah. The only question is will we control it or will $advertisers control it?

Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Octets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397766)

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of addressing in this country. The ICANN IPv4 class/8 was the block to own. Then the other guy came out with a IPV6 block. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called NAT. That's network address translation. For flexibility. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to IPV6 tunnels. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling four octets and a NAT. Flexibility or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five octets.

Sure, we could go to IPV6 next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, IPV4 worked out pretty well, and IPV6 is the next number after IPV5 which seems to have disappeared. So let's play it safe. Let's make a longer address and call it the 4aff:fe0e. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!

Re:Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Octets (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398444)

All kidding aside, they probably _should_ have just increased the address space of IPv4.

IPv6 may be better.. sure.. but it is too different for its own good.. and requires too much of a drastic change for most networks to implement it.

Re:Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Octets (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398578)

... That ... that wouldn't work. For the same reason we can't just magically convert to IPv6. It would take massive replacements of hardware to do even that. So why not just overhaul the entire thing and apply years of knowledge if we have to overhaul everything anyway?

ipv6 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397814)

Whens slashdot going to go ipv6?

So slashdot, when are YOU getting on ipv6 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34397906)

Because I'm on it right now yet I see no AAAA record. Pretty much anyone on Comcast can get a 6rd address at the drop of a hat; native dual stack is coming. Other providers will have to get on the bandwagon soon I gather. Whine endless about the end of ipv4 after you've already made arrangements to join the modern age.

Cheap DSL routers (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397924)

For years now I have had this netbsd box as my front end. The DSL modem plugs into an ethernet port on the PC which NATs in two directions: a local hard wired network and wifi. So after y'all slashdotted by server I stated looking at a rebuild around this nice fast AMD64 machine but it is light on PCI slots so I can't have the two ethernet cards plus atheros wifi plus serial that I need.

So last night I splashed out on a Netcomm wifi router and the plan I formulated later in the evening was to use it as my front end with the DMZ trick pointing to the BSD box.

Then this morning the penny dropped. NetBSD supports IPv6 perfectly well but the netcomm configuration pages don't mention it. But most people use these little wifi routers. Are they screwed? Am I screwed if I rely on this router?

Re:Cheap DSL routers (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398056)

Most of your cheap little crap routers have 32 bit processors with no larger data types and a two-bit amount of RAM so IPv6 will choke them like a bitch if it is even feasible to support on them.

Re:Cheap DSL routers (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398176)

What the sam hell are you babbling about? Enable your IPv6 routing and leave us alone!

Re:Cheap DSL routers (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398376)

Yes, cheap routers without IPv6 support will need to be firmware upgraded, if the hardware can handle it and the manufacturer releases one, or replaced at the user's expenses if it doesn't.

I'm on the same boat, but since my ISP doesn't give out IPv6 addresses yet (although it already has them assigned), I'm procrastinating.

all because MS won't put TLS on XP... (1, Interesting)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34397970)

what needs "public" IPs? What /really/ needs them? routing interfaces between networks, and websites using ssl. Since a very large percentage of the web surfing population is still using windowsXP or older, we can't use TLS (which has been around for ages). So instead, every single ssl-enabled site needs it's own IP. I work at a small company, and even we could release hundreds of public IPs if WindowsXP could use tls instead of ssl.

Re:all because MS won't put TLS on XP... (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398066)

what needs "public" IPs?

Anything that wants to participate in the peer-to-peer internet as a peer.

Re:all because MS won't put TLS on XP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34398204)

What /really/ needs them?

Well, unless you want to use UPnP, pretty much everything which wants to act as a server. (P2P, VoIP, HTTP/FTP, [Insert favorite user-hosted game here], etc, etc)

Since a very large percentage of the web surfing population is still using windowsXP or older, we can't use TLS (which has been around for ages).

I'm not sure I follow, what part of XP doesn't support TLS [microsoft.com] ?

So what happens to Hamachi (2)

thegreenbandit (965132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398016)

Will everyone using Hamachi be unable to reach whoever gets a 5/8 address?

Re:So what happens to Hamachi (1)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398454)

Hamachi is built on top of IP, but I don't know exactly how it works. Once the data leaves your machine the network will treat it just the same if it's hamachi traffic or not. If you can reach it via IP, you can reach it via hamachi (excepting IPv6 support, dunno where they stand with that).

Re:So what happens to Hamachi (1)

thegreenbandit (965132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398652)

Well, the issue is that once the 5.x.x.x address block becomes routable, Hamachi users will have 2 routes to the 5.x.x.x address block. One will be to all the Hamachi addresses, and the other will be to the legitimate, RIPE assigned addresses. Whichever route takes priority, there will be problems.

IANA, not ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34398170)

It is IANA--Internet Assigned Numbers Authority--not ICANN that allocates IP addresses. They also do things like port and protocol numbers.

Maybe I'm being naive... (1)

dominion (3153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398424)

But can someone explain to me why IPv6 didn't just extend the IPv4 format logically and stylistically? Why not just tack on more numbers? And all existing numbers could be assumed

For instance,

209.85.225.147

becomes

1.1.209.85.225.147

Instead, we break convention to use colons and hex, ie. 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf

It seems to me adoption could have been a lot quicker and less painless.

Re:Maybe I'm being naive... (2, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398518)

They did not bother, because they thought if there was a freaking decade to roll it out, that would be plenty of time.

Re:Maybe I'm being naive... (-1, Troll)

rekenner (849871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398592)

If you think that would actually *matter* in how quick it got adopted, you're amazingly retarded and don't understand why it's taking time to adopt.

Re:Maybe I'm being naive... (2)

dominion (3153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398632)

Well, that was very helpful, and thank you for your enlightened and useful response!

Re:Maybe I'm being naive... (-1, Troll)

rekenner (849871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398662)

(Oh, and, you're double retarded, because it would be 16 sets of numbers. IP addresses would be 48 [63 with dots] numbers. 32 [39 with colons] for IPv6 is bad enough.)

Re:Maybe I'm being naive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34398726)

Double retarded? Are you 12?

Crazy.... (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34398734)

If you examine the currently alloted /8 addresses it seems really silly to say they are exhausted.

I would rather say the current assignment is being poorly used at the moment.

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

This is about 1/5th of our total pool being thrown around rather carelessly. It would probably on buy a few more years to reclaim these addresses and chop them up, but surely the problem is just poor usage as opposed to exhaustion.

Not that I think any type of recycling or waste management will actually happen in the IP space, but I do like complaining about it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>