×

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!

Protect Your Pre-1997 IP Address

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the careful-that's-an-antique dept.

The Internet 275

CWmike writes "With IPv4 space running out any day now, is your legacy IP address space safe? Marc Lindsey writes that if your company obtained its IP address space before 1997, you have probably received several letters from the American Registry for Internet Numbers encouraging you to enter into a contractual agreement to protect the IP address. But should you sign it? Be careful — there are several issues you should consider before signing up for this, writes Lindsey, who offers a deeper look at the issue."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

275 comments

PHEARSCHT POasst (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523350)

SUCKAS!

Seriously? (3, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523364)

There is nothing special about IPv4. Upgrade your systems to IPv6 already, folks. It's been around for what? 10 years now? Give me a break.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523414)

There is nothing special about IPv4. Upgrade your systems to IPv6 already, folks.

Well upgrading those systems costs BIG_SUM $, while using ipv4 costs almost nothing.

Also most corporations don't see a benefit in using ipv6, so upgrading systems is a waste of money.

Re:Seriously? (0, Troll)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523424)

Big dollars? Are you nuts? 99% of all operating systems released since Windows ME have support for IPv6. The hardest part of the upgrade is actually switching over to it. There is no hardware to upgrade and there is no software to upgrade.

They will once IPv4 runs out.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523468)

There are plenty of pieces of hardware that dont support IPv4. Unless you upgrade the hardware to a dual stack configuration. Routers, switches, etc arnt cheap.

Just because the OS supports it, doesnt mean its going to be easy or cheap.

Fast? (4, Funny)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523558)

There are plenty of pieces of hardware that dont support IPv4. Unless you upgrade the hardware to a dual stack configuration. Routers, switches, etc arnt cheap.

Just because the OS supports it, doesnt mean its going to be easy or cheap.

So, fast is not out of the question? ;)

Re:Seriously? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523748)

Frankly most commercial targeted hardware has supported v6 for at least the past five years or so. In some situations it might need memory upgrades and the like but that is in the grand scheme of things cheap! Other things like VOIP, PC over IP, multimedia technologies have pushed the equipment much older than five years or so out of most shops that have a significant amount of investment in route/switch anyway.

If you ask me its legacy applications as usually that probably forces most orgs to go dual stack or holds them back, kinda like it keeps IE6 and that 3270 terminal emulator on the desktop.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524094)

LAN switches are on a different layer than protocol. Routers should already have IPv6 capability. The "etc" don't need to switch to enable IPv6 network to function..

Re:Seriously? (2)

leenks (906881) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524426)

Most enterprise "LAN" switches are protocol aware, however. Ever heard of a VLAN? QoS?

More to the point, routers are protocol aware and I'd wager that most are not IPv6 capable, and if they are, they are not part of an IPv6 enabled environment (which might require considerable expense to make it IPv6 enabled, or at least a lot of planning).

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

bell.colin (1720616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524332)

It's not just Hardware you also have application software with limits, I support several at work that were purchased/developed in the last two year that require connection to a server running a background service.

The field for the server "REQUIRES" a x.x.x.x IP format (won't even except a host-name) and won't work any other way, some of this software is required by state law so it can't be replace with another product. (we have to wait for the lazy software devs at the company to change it)

I hate cheap-ass devs who still write software using their dusty copy of VisualBasic 4,5, or 6 and sell it to our users today for $50K.

Re:Seriously? (2)

kantos (1314519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523500)

I talked to the IT department at my company recently about this... all of our infrastructure supports IPv6... only one little bit that doesn't... our upstream provider... so until ViaWest gets their act together... we won't have IPv6.

Re:Seriously? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523632)

The operation systems are a nice start however you still have to deal with:

* almost no home router supports IPv6
* almost no provider offers IPv6
* almost no webpage runs IPv6

Re:Seriously? (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524510)

only #2 is false. many routers provide IPv6, and more webpages than you imagine do. I was running IPv6 for several monts through a tunnel, and all google sites, even youtube, work through IPv6. Even FACEBOOK runs ipv6 too...

Re:Seriously? (5, Informative)

franciscohs (1003004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523682)

I'm sorry to have to say this to you like this, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Did you think about the infrastructure where you connect all those PC's?. Take Cisco in the Datacenter for example, current status is:

Routers and switches support IPv6 (excluding Nexus 1000V)
Firewalls (ASA) support IPv6
Firewall Service Modules (Cisco's Datacenter firewall solution) don't support IPv6 in transparent mode, don't support failover in IPv6, don't support IPv6 on hardware (which make them useless for real traffic)
Load Balancers (ACE), no support
WAN optimization, no support
Ironport, no support

etc.

And even if this support comes, in most cases it's not just a simple software update, you have to update the hardware and you're talking 10's of thousands of dollars for each. So believe me, it's not that easy, even with the will and the money, in some cases there is no even offering from the vendors at this point, which is shameful.

Re:Seriously? (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524528)

So we don't have IPv6 because vendors don't implement it, or because customers don't ask for it?

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523728)

There may be software to upgrade - who know what custom apps business' depend upon are not able to cope with ipv6

Re:Seriously? (1)

rabbit994 (686936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523828)

Windows XP/2003 does not support IPv6 in any meaningful way. Yes, it has it in network config page. However, for example, it won't make DNS calls over IPv6 even when querying AAAA records. Forget getting SMB running over IPv6 properly. Finally, some products like Exchange 2003 and ISA 2004 and others have zero IPv6 support.

Only Vista/7 and their server counterparts have full IPv6 support.

Re:Seriously? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524310)

It's not like you can have anything but dual stack in the next ten years. Just run NATted IPv4 which handles DNS just fine, and use IPv6 for anything that can benefit from it. SMB is not supposed to ever leave your local network (and is abysmally slow if it does), so that's not a blocker either.

Re:Seriously? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524432)

Windows XP/2003 does not support IPv6 in any meaningful way. Yes, it has it in network config page. However, for example, it won't make DNS calls over IPv6 even when querying AAAA records. Forget getting SMB running over IPv6 properly. Finally, some products like Exchange 2003 and ISA 2004 and others have zero IPv6 support

No dualstack sockets either :(

Your right it sucks most vendors make you pay for upgrades to obtain IPv6 functionality but at least IPv6 is available in current versions of exchange and forefront (ISA).

I have a 2003 server and IPv6 works fine. This is only because it also has IPv4 connectivity so the downsides you point out don't really apply to me.

DNS is really the only major showstopper for going "IPv6 only" in terms of XP Internet connectivity. It can easily be resolved by installing a local proxy agent that provides IPv6 resolver functionality missing in XP.

I think it is more realistic to project ahead in time to a point where IPv4 connectivity becomes "optional". At this point what will the XP user base look like?

Until then all ISPs with the possible exception of some mobile carriers will be going dualstack where the XP shortcommings do not matter.

Re:Seriously? (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524414)

Which is fine. If I cared (I have been debating it) I could probably get my home internal network doing internal IPv6 and connected out via a tunnel this weekend (if I didn't already have some other things to do, like clean out the room that is to become the new office).

Might be able to do it at a small business, in a few days to weeks, if things were otherwise slow.

Try it on a large multi-site network that runs continuously. Coordinating changes between multiple groups, with varying level of skill and network clue, and varying responsibilities, all while everyone is doing their normal day job.

Shit, its going to take you two years of meetings just to explain to mid level managers why they need to get the high level managers on board so they can make all the little fiefdoms work together on something that isn't directly of interest to any of them, but yours.

Of course, its only two years because I figure its about that long before the high level manager hears some BS about someone else who did IpV6 and then asks the mid level managers that you have been battering for years about why they aren't doing it when these other people are.

Re:Seriously? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523786)

It's going to cost when IP4 addresses run out. It cost money having to fix Y2K at the last moment. It's just laziness and stupidity to leave things to the last moment.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523444)

Upgrade your systems to IPv6 already, folks.

Yeah, just like that. ISPs should replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment, find sensible IPv6 transit providers and re-negotiate their peering arrangements (whom may not want to peer with IPv6), then allocate and assign IPv6 addresses to every single IP endpoint on their entire network and then spend a couple of million more replacing end-user network equipment that almost certainly doesn't support IPv6, then await the massive flood of complaints from users who have additional non-IPv6 equipment behind their router which no longer works E.g. almost every consumer VoIP phone every shat out by the lowest bidder.

That's just for a small ISP.

The major force holding back IPv6 deployment is shitty consumer hardware that doesn't "do" IPv6, and shitty network hardware vendors who charge an arm and a leg for IPv6 capable routers etc. (coupled with the fact that people have already invested a lot of money on non-IPv6 hardware anyway). It's not like the ISPs are doing it just to piss you off.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523568)

Yeah, right, let's wait some more, untill we hit the brick wall of IPv4 space limitation, start losing money and then, when the money is lost — move over to IPv6. Never forget, that the greedy one pays twice.

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523628)

Yeah, just like that. ISPs should replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment

ISPs replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment every year. Capacity grows fast enough that anything more than a few years old is so laughably obsolete it's not worth maintaining. Anyone who's been buying equipment for an ISP and not mandating IPv6 compatibility for the last ten years really shouldn't still have a job.

Re:Seriously? (5, Informative)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523780)

We do?

Actually no we don't, because customers (that would be you) aren't willing to pay the actual cost of equipment. Upgrades are something that happens when the old stuff is dead or 5 years has passed (the time it takes to write it off), whichever comes first.

Re:Seriously? (1, Insightful)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524166)

ok, I'll bite.
A five year life cycle?
IPv6 has been with us for 10 years?
That mean that you have had 2 chances to upgrade your equipment to something that would support it.
This is not some thing that has snuck up on you, your just cheap or lazy or afraid of the change.
I think that what you meant was, "Customers are not willing to pay more for the equipment and we don't want to cut in to our profits to update our hardware."
Except, of course for the fact that you have ignored this problem for over a decade.
nice

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524242)

Except it really isn't a problem. People have been parroting these doom and gloom situations for a decade and yet we've done just fine with ipv4. The fact that they haven't spent all this money and yet the Internet has exploded is a good sign that it would have been a wasteful expenditure with no real ROI. You can whine all you want about them not wanting to spend their profits on this and they are being greedy, but its no different than the fact that you don't constantly replace your car, appliances, computers, etc on a yearly basis either because that's just wasteful spending and you're getting negligible benefits in return.

Re:Seriously? (0)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524292)

Well tesla has had all-electric vehicles for the past 4 years.
Most people replace thier cars every 3-5 years.
Given how you feel, you better buy one next year, or face being a hypocrite.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524526)

Not even remotely the same thing.

IPv6 can do everything IPv4 can do. IPv6 network equipment has been widely available.

Electric cars can't replace all cars. Some people drive long distances, or like to have that option, even if they could rent a gas car for the rare times they really need it. Also, there's cost and availability.

Re:Seriously? (1)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524592)

you mustn't understand how companies deal with their capital expenditures, and replacement costs of infrastructure.

a company is going to replace network gear typically every 5 years or so. same company may replace servers every 3 years depending on need/workload.
those replacements are typically spelled out 6 months prior to the year in which they are replaced, and the new cost is put into the capex. capex goes through approvals, and typically gets a nice little chop because IT wants to add/replace too much. capex goes back to IT Director, who plays with the numbers, removes a few upgrades, sends capex upward for approval.

once approved, engineers are going to replace gear that will benefit the organization for the next 3 to 5 years, where the cycle will repeat itself. and because the spend is kept artificially low, only the most deserving pieces get the money.

why would engineers think to deal with IPv6 if IPv4 is not a real pressing issue when upgrading? the pressing issue is going to be the pressure to lower latency, remove bottlenecks, and scale bandwidth. when your boss(es) are breathing down your neck because you dropped 500K on some new gear, the last thing you're thinking about is solving the internet's (someone else's) problems.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524224)

GP:

Anyone who's been buying equipment for an ISP and not mandating IPv6 compatibility for the last ten years really shouldn't still have a job.

You:

Upgrades are something that happens when the old stuff is dead or 5 years has passed (the time it takes to write it off), whichever comes first.

I fail to see what the problem is...

Yes, we do (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524410)

I'm chief technical engineer for a large ISP in Europe. Posting anon because this need not be correlated to my employer.

We replace all network hardware every two years. Everything. Yes, you read that right, everything. Some equipment even sooner. Really.

It costs more to maintain the older hardware than buy new gear and get more energy efficiency, more connections per rack, more customers per square foot of data center.

If you really think a five year cycle is OK, then you're way, way behind the curve and your customers should really migrate to another service provider. Or you are in an area without competition perhaps.

Spend a bit of money to reap in the big bucks. And boy, do we reap in the bucks, you wouldn't believe it...

Re:Yes, we do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524430)

Hahahaha. 10/10. Good troll.

Sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524506)

I'll give a hint. Think of a large ISP in Europe that has an net profit of over a billion per quarter. Google the guy responsible for infrastructure. Give me a call during local business hours.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523958)

Your view of the world is so very cute and naive. There is tons of "obsolete" hardware running the Internet in all sorts of nooks and crannies. To claim that everyone is running 2 year old routers, switches, etc is a laughable claim.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524072)

ISPs replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment every year. Capacity grows fast enough that anything more than a few years old is so laughably obsolete it's not worth maintaining.

We do? It does? It is?

Not so much. It might be nice to live in a fantasy world where companies spend money just to keep you happy, out here in the real world, companies spend money when they damn well need too, and they spend the least amount of money they can possibly get away with. Sadly for you, capacity is not growing fast enough to make "old" kit obsolete.

I work for a small ISP and our entire edge network capacity is no more than 3Gb/s sustained, and we commit way below that on our transits. Bandwidth at individual points on the network are far, far lower than people think. It's only a few of the bigger ISPs and the peering aggregation sites that need to worry about 10Gb Ethernet, even now. It'll be 5-10 years before you see 10Gb top-of-rack switches as the standard, and 1Gb switches will still be around long after that.

Ya not so much actually (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524554)

I work at a university which is an ISP, as most universities are. We are still using Cisco 6500s from about 10 years ago, and will continue to use those 6500s for some time. They are actually upgrading a few of the core routers soon, but basically only because the central network guys want new toys to play with, the 6500s work fine. Despite the massive increase in campus bandwidth, those 6500s work just fine. We'd probably have to move to something bigger than 10gbit connections to buildings (which we are actually just moving to now) before they wouldn't.

Now the 6500s are flexible platforms, and you can buy new supervisors to do IPv6. We actually did this a couple years ago... At a cost of about $10,000,000. That is just to serve the 50,000ish users on campus. Also that is only the big core equipment. The edge equipment didn't have to be upgraded since it is all switched at that point.

This idea that ISPs just trash tons of high end equipment every year is stupid. High end stuff doesn't get replaced until it is necessary, and that can be a long, long time. If you want them to buy all new hardware yearly, well then be prepared for your bill to go way up.

Also, that isn't the only problem. IPv6 support is not good at all in the home. A lot of routers don't support IPv6. I bought a Linksys router/WAP about a year ago, one of the N ones even, no IPv6 support. So if my ISP went all v6 I'd have to rebuy it and you know people would be mad about that. Even computers are problematic. There's a lot of XP systems out there and it has no IPv6 support. Sure it can be installed, you really thing a non-technical user can handle that?

Before IPv6 is feasible we not only need more ISP upgrades, we need more upgrades at home. Also, we really aren't going to need a good 4-to-6 setup. We need some way in the home that old devices that don't support v6 and can't be upgraded can get a v4 address that can then be routed transparently through the connection's v6 address. If that exists, I've not seen it.

It is a complex issue, and hence not something that will get solved quickly. I don't think we'll really start seeing IPv6 adoption in a big way for several more years. Once device support is far more wide spread, and more network equipment has been upgraded, it'll be more feasible. Also, when IPv4 really DOES start to deplete, and by that I mean companies start to run out of addresses not just that the top level assignments are gone, then there'll be pressure to make it happen.

People forget that the "running out" that is spoken of isn't that all addresses will be gone. It is that all available high level blocks will be allocated to regional registrars. They will still have space to allocate, and even when they run out most ISPs will still have space to allocate. It is when the ISPs start running out, that is when we are ACTUALLY running out of IPv4 space in a meaningful way, and there'll be pressure to move to something larger.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523522)

Who marked that troll? Jeeze. /. moderation is retarded these days.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523542)

Get the lead out of your lazy asses and upgrade already. Go ahead and mod me troll for reminding you people that you're lazy but all that's going to do is make 10 more of us remind you in the next IPv6 thread.

Re:Seriously? (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523666)

There isn't anything wrong with ipv4 either. We just need to clean up the hourders. I know my undergrad had a class B and 2 class C domains. And there are only 5000 students and like 800 faculty. Most of them doesn't need an outside address. And could be natted. I bet a lot of collages have more then they need. As well as a lot of companies. Ipv6 only offers freedom for bad network design and not knowing who is in or out.

Re:Seriously? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523928)

No, everyone needs a real IP not NAT. The internet is not fucking cable TV, we are all nodes not just moronic consumers.

NAT is bad network design. Also I went to a college at a university, you seem to have attended a composite work of art.

Re:Seriously? (5, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524452)

The world is consuming a /8 - 16 million addresses - roughly every 3 weeks.

Your piddling 65k addresses for a class B? 2 hours, tops.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523698)

China moves already to IPv9

"At the New Generation Internet Ten-Digit Network Industrialization & Development Seminar held on June 25th at Zhejiang University, it was announced that China's Internet technology, IPv9, had been formally adapted and popularized into the civil and commercial sectors. Based on a ten-digit computing method, IPv9 has its own address protocol, nameplate protocol, transitional protocol, and digital domain name regulations and standards as stated by Mr. Xie Jianping, founder of the IPv9 protocol and leader of the Ten-Digit Network Technology Standard Team. Along with being compatible with IPv4 and IPv6, IPv9 can also realize logistic separations between them and safely control them."

Meanwhile US and Europe struggle on Ipv6!

Re:Seriously? (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523846)

Did you even read what this "IPv9" is? It's a DNS addon (works only in China) that re-routes all-number domains and resolves them a conventional IPv4 or IPv6 address. So, next time after you see an article — bother to read it before copying blindly to your comments.

Re:Seriously? (2)

anegg (1390659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524042)

Before you make the upgrade from IPv4 to IPv6 across your network, you will want to make sure that your network equipment can maintain its advertised speeds handling IP v6 traffic. For example, routing equipment and security devices may have had hardware optimizations that work with IPv4 protocol traffic but not IPv6. If your network equipment doesn't support IPv6 traffic at those devices rated performance levels, you will need to analyze your performance needs and equipment upgrade options prior to upgrading your network protocol from IPv4 to IPv6.

Re:Seriously? (2)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524176)

IPv4 is not going anywhere, even if IPv6 is adopted by the ISPs. There is plenty of hardware around that does not support v6 addressing, like network printers and most current home broadband routers. Just like companies hoard IE6 because their stuff doesn't work without it, so will they keep intranets on IPv4 no matter how much IPv6 propaganda is flung at them. Personally, like most normal people, I have no interest in having any IPv6 on my home network. It is much easier for the ISP to provide a 6to4 gateway and let all the users keep pretending they have an IPv4 address even though it's really IPv6.

the internet a fuedal domain (0)

kantos (1314519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523376)

... Where IANA is the king and owns all of the IP space... granting it to its dukes (RIRs).. who in-turn grant plots to the earls (ISPs) .... who inturn grant blocks to everybody else...

Re:the internet a fuedal domain (5, Insightful)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523454)

Yes, superficially, hierarchies look like other hierarchies.

Re:the internet a fuedal domain (1)

kantos (1314519) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523474)

oh I know... but it's fun to make fun of it this way... since it is very superficially identical to the feudal land-granting system

Lawyer says: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523386)

The status of IP addresses as "property" has been the subject of considerable policy debate in the industry and remains an unresolved legal question.

Maybe, with the right argument, we could turn routing tables into property rights! That way there is a clear and legal manner for an organization to ... pay lawyers money to fight over a number.

Back in the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523390)

In 1997 I was 6000 miles from the US. If I still lived down there and still had that IP address then the American Registry of Internet Numbers wouldn't have any jurisdiction.

For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523398)

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, let's just move to IPv6 already.

Yes, there will be a cost associated with it. Most things that will bring true value do cost something. It's called an investment, and moving to IPv6 would be an excellent one to make.

America could have been a leader here. America could've used the early adoption of IPv6 to bring strategic and economic benefits. But these days, our business leaders are too short-sighted to make good investments. When all that matters is next quarter's results, solid investments will be totally ignored.

It's likely that Europe and Asia will be making widespread use of IPv6 far before America ever will. The business cultures there encourage longer-term thinking, where it's recognized that some short-term costs can lead to huge benefits over the long term.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523436)

Yes, that culture has indeed worked out for Europe. In fact, I think Ireland and Greece have definitely benefited the most by screwing over the short-term (haven't they screwed over the long term, as well?).

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523534)

Greece and Ireland are barely European. They're both on the fringes of the Continent, and in terms of commerce and governance they are far more American than they are European.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523650)

Greece has squandered its income on short sighted social programs (instead of investing in school, just dump money on people so they shut up) while relying on fickle businesses like tourism for income (ya know, the kind that feel it first when the economy takes a dive).

Ireland attracted companies with a low tax policy that ruined the finances in the long term for a short time increase in jobs.

I doubt either can be seen as a result of "long time, planned, future investment".

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523702)

No actually Ireland's public finances were looking pretty good until they made a really stupid promise. They promised to fully backstop their large banks. That was a black hole that in turn cased the governments credit worth to come into question. Given how many of the largest firms their or foreign they probably could have and should have let the banks fail with little collateral damage.; More specifically guaranteed only the deposits to keep money from fleeing the country and told the bond and equity holders your on your own after all you expected to enjoy the gains from your investment privately you get to experience the loses privately.

Had they done this their probably would have been no need for a bailout. So yea the real problem is they are governed like we are here in the USA where there is a certain protected class of old money that does not have to follow the same rules the rest of us do. Tax policy has almost nothing to do with it other than now like us their tax payers will have to chip in for the mistakes of others who are very wealthy to begin with.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523916)

Yes, that culture has indeed worked out for Europe. In fact, I think Ireland and Greece have definitely benefited the most by screwing over the short-term (haven't they screwed over the long term, as well?).

You can blame the financial companies for giving countries the rope to hang themselves with, but the Greek and Irish debt crisis are almost all about public debt. To please the voters by providing lots of services and generous benefits while keeping taxes low, they've completely ignored basic economics like making your income match your expenses and just let the budget deficit run wild. Eventually the lenders go "Whoa whoa whoa, you want to borrow even MORE?" First they do it for a risk premium then they finally say no more credit for you, then people blame the lenders for "putting the thumbscrews" on the country. Of course the US crisis that lowered their tax income and increased their interest rates didn't help, but it's what happens when you push yourself to the financial limits and operate with no safety net.

I very well understand Germany and the other countries that have been relatively conservative in spending, it's like we've saved and you've wasted, but now you expect us to come save your ass? They've been at the brink of financial collapse, and the EU brought them back from the edge with a crisis packet but they don't seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation. The public debt is still increasing and now they start talking about doing a "haircut" of their debt. But that will force everyone else to take losses, and I don't think they will. The UK used anti-terror laws against Iceland after the Icelandic bank collapse, I'm sure they'd do they same against Greece. And if you want another round of nationalism in Europe, break Germany's back trying to save the euro.

Anyway, this got a bit off track but the point is that this is almost all a government-created crisis that was vastly accelerated by the financial crisis in the US. It's not so much an unregulated financial industry but more national leaders who act as if they got endless pockets and perhaps even in some form has counted on the EU to bail them out. And now it turns out that if everyone gets on the public debt carousel, there's nobody with money left to bail out tose that don't have money. The various European countries are now pinning each other up the way US investment banks did, which will either save them or cause an economic bust so huge the Great Depression becomes small fry. They're certainly putting more and more eggs in that basket.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

ElectroPrime (1817866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523466)

That would be great... if only all the companies hadn't realized they could now abuse the situation to steal^H^H^H^H^Hacquire increasing amounts of money from their victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclients.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523864)

Learn the ultimate ^w combo already.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524568)

He's probably a Linux kiddie feeling leet on Solaris who doesn't know that he should use DELETE instead of BACKSPACE.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523642)

What has really killed IPv6 is not cost but lack of interest if not disinterest. You IT department at work does not really want the machine at your desk to be a true internet peer. They have a block of public IPs to hosts your orgs public services on and they can solve their other access problems with NAT. The need is meet and it even simplifies things in some ways depending on your perspective. At home your ISP who for most of America is probably also in the content distribution business does not care. The vast majority of their customers won't mind being NATed when the addresses run out and those ISPs would probably rather everyone be NATed anyway making certain end users were only clients. They know if they did it now their would be an out cry from a noisy few and it might bring the FCC down on them, if they wait they will have a perfect excuse to NAT everyone and nobody will really have any say in the matter because at that point it will be the only real solution.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523742)

You IT department at work does not really want the machine at your desk to be a true internet peer.

NAT is the wrong solution to that problem anyway. They should instead block incoming SYN packets, problem solved -- in a way that's more scalable (you can have multiple of these firewall boxes, with failover and load balancing), more fault tolerant (your TCP connections can persist after the firewall reboots). These qualities are quite hard to achieve with NAT.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523960)

As one of those IT guys at work I strongly disagree. NAT is a hack and a terrible one. Use a firewall for that.

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

bell.colin (1720616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524424)

What do you think most firewalls use to bridge internal addresses (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, 192.168.x.x) to outside addresses?

Re:For crying out loud, let's just move to IPv6. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524582)

That is only for NAT, it is not actually needed at all. I have plenty of machines with real IPs in a class C just for my servers that I firewall from the rest of the world. On the ports needed you can get through just fine on the very same IPs.

NAT is not needed for this to work.

Why? (2, Interesting)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523460)

Why would it matter if you have the same IP address you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different one?

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523518)

Why would it matter if you have the same IP address you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different one?

Ask wikileaks. We're entering a world where you can't rely on DNS.

Re:Why? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523532)

Why would it matter if you have the same phone number you've had for several years? What's wrong with switching to a different one?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523634)

> Why would it matter if you have the same phone number you've had for several years? What's wrong with switching to a different one?

Because... there's no DNS for telephone numbers...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524382)

There most certainly is. In times past they called it a phone book, white pages, or telephone directory.

Re:Why? (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524496)

I'm not sure if you are trying to be clever or not, so I'll bite anyway...

Before the new fangled internet came along, we had a thing called a telephone directory which provided a lookup between name and number, somewhat like DNS. Even better, you could call the operator (or a directory enquiries service) and get them to look up the number for a name if you knew their rough address.

Of course, you could be ex-directory, and this would be like an IP address with no DNS.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523658)

Not the same. My phone number is published, my IP address isn't. I've moved IP addresses for my server four times in the last year. I set the DNS TTL to a few seconds, wait for old caches to expire, update it to the new address, and then reset the TTL to a longer value. No on notices.

I just moved to a new mobile phone company too. My SIM ID, which is used to uniquely identify my phone on the network, changed. My phone number was moved across. The phone number is just an entry in a database that maps to a SIM ID, just as DNS maps to IP addresses (actually, DNS can map to all sorts of other things, including geospacial coordinates and telephone numbers).

That's why we have these layers of indirection - so the low-level ones can be changed easily.

Re:Why? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523802)

Actually it is the same. You just aren't used to have to ask the whitepages where person X is at the moment everytime you dial him up.

In fact, it isn't until very recently you where able to move a phonenumber with you (EU, no idea how it works in US) - requiring you to update all those who might want to contact you.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523660)

Why would it matter if you have the same phone number you've had for several years? What's wrong with switching to a different one?

You end up telling your friends and family your new number and your charity, political, and illegal telemarketing calls drop off to nothing for a few months.

Loved it!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523736)

Because we access servers by names, usually through DNS. Your telephone number is the lookup. If we had telephone systems that let you dial "kthreadd" we wouldn't be so attached to fixed numbers.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524492)

No your name is looked up in exactly the same way the server name is looked up. When someone new needs to contact you they don’t magically know your number. They know your name which they look up in the appropriate system (i.e. telephone directory, address book, memory cache, etc.). You certainly don't store just numbers in your contact list. You store a name with the number so you can reference it by name. Hell, I don’t even know my wife’s mobile number by heart when I can just select her name in my mobile. If she changed her number the contact entry would just need to be updated and I could continue referencing her by name.

I see little difference.

Re:Why? (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524562)

Why would it matter if you have the same IP address you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different one?

There isn't. The problem is you asked the wrong question.
This is ARIN we are talking about, they don't deal with single IP addresses.

Try a /16 block, or 65000 IP addresses.

To reword your question into relevance: "Why would it matter if you have the same 65000 IP addresses you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different 65000 addresses?"

Can you not imagine the undue amount of work such a change would involve to renumber that many computers, servers, routers, switches, DNS entries, DHCP MAC entries, config files for access control, and firewall rules?

Dear owner of IP address 214.123.23.45 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34523582)

We are an Internet IP address registry in China. We have received information from a local company RANDOM PRODUCT PTY INC that they want to register the following
IP addresses that are similar to yours:

214.124.23.45
214.123.32.45
215.124.23.45

Please contact us urgently if you do not wish us to allow this registration.

Bankrupt companies? (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523670)

So, where does the letter go for all of those bankrupt companies? Silicon Valley post offices must have a large pile of undeliverable ones.

Maybe that's the final legacy of dead startups: their IPV4 address block is worth more than the company ever was.

I got one (4, Interesting)

bbn (172659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523672)

I just checked. My 1994 class C is still allocated to me. I have no idea how to regain control over it though as every single contact detail, except my name, is outdated by 15 years.

It was never used on the public internet. But back then they said you should get one for your local lan. This was before everyone started doing 192.168.x.y. So I applied for a class C and got it.

Even if I did manage to get RIPE to correct the contact details, I do not know any ISP who would advertize it for me. So this class C is part of the dead IPv4 space that will probably never get used.

Re:I got one (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523898)

Um, why don't you send a notarized letter via certified post to your regional IP address manager (e.g. ARIN) describing the details under which you obtained the block and giving up any interest in same? If they need that block back it would at least give them a starting point to work with.

sPh

Re:I got one (5, Interesting)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523900)

IANAL, but here's some perspective from someone who has been in the thick of the ARIN policy process for the last few years:

First, you're talking about RIPE (european IP addresses) while the article is about the registration services process at ARIN (north american IP addresses).

Had you been talking about ARIN, this is frankly the kind of thing where you'll want to sign the LRSA and soon. ARIN will work with you to nail down the details and confirm the registration but they'll want to normalize their relationship with you via a signed contract first. I think they'll still update if you come to them with ironclad documentation, but if you had ironclad documentation you'd have been the kind of person who kept the registration up to date to begin with.

For those who are still contactable via at least the email address published on the registration, now is not the time to sign the LRSA. ARIN claims you have more rights under the LRSA than under the regular RSA but on close examination the claim doesn't really hold up. It's a standard adhesion contract in which the powerful party has reserved the rights to themselves.

That having been said, keep tabs on proposed ARIN policy every 6 months or so. ARIN probably won't seek the legal liability from trying to seize legacy registrations that are obviously in use, but the situation could change.

If you are in the situation where your contact details are dead, I personally think you SHOULD sign the LRSA and normalize things with ARIN. A /24 is going to be worth at least $1000 within 12 months, and probably a lot more. IPv6 won't deploy fast enough, the IPv4 free pool will be gone by mid year and the only source of new IPv4 addresses will be folks who are willing to sell.

On the other side, the unrouted dead registrations without valid contacts are very likely to evaporate in the next 24 months. The ARIN policies for this sort of reclamation aren't in place yet, but mark my words: they will be.

Re:I got one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524098)

Mod the parent up! Seriously informative, overlooked post ALERT!!!

Re:I got one (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524268)

One thing I've been trying to figure out, what exactly is going to happen in the next year or so? We know that ipv4 is going to run out of addresses, and we know that ipv6 hasn't really been rolled out yet (I myself will need to buy a new wireless router, which is ok). But what's going to happen? Will IANA stop giving out numbers and say, "sorry, nothing we can do. No more numbers." Will that pressure people to switch over to ipv6, or will it stop any new websites from coming online for a few years?

When ipv4 addresses run out, are we really going to switch to ipv6? How, considering that no one wants to go first? As far as I can tell, y2k was relatively minor compared to this, and yet you hear nothing about it outside tech news sites.

Maybe it will be new companies who push it first...they will have no other choice but to advertise, "if you want to visit us, come to this website, after changing this setting on your computer, etc." Kind of lame for them, but what other choice do they have?

Re:I got one (2)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524408)

"But what's going to happen? Will IANA stop giving out numbers and say, "sorry, nothing we can do. No more numbers."

Yes. Quite possibly in less than a month.

When we're down to 5 /8's they're distributed to the RIRs automatically and IANA shuts down its ipv4 operations forever.

The RIRs then have until their v4 pool runs dry - they won't get any more - which may be quite quick for some (like apnic) and slower for others.

After that it's down to what ISPs have - they'll probably ramp up their prices for v4 an instigate such horrors as carrier grade NAT, just to stretch it out, but it's just postponing the inevitable.

And yeah, potentially this is bigger than y2k and the great unwashe don't even know it's happening - even though it *will* affect them.

who cares (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523692)

Call me crazy, but wasn't DNS invented to remove the significance of using IP addresses as a means of identification?

Re:who cares (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34523912)

Call me crazy, but wasn't DNS invented to remove the significance of using IP addresses as a means of identification?

That was before Javascript security issues mandated dns pinning.

Not that everything (or really much of anything) actually implemented DNS TTLs before, but I like blaming Javascript for all the world's ills.

Why so much regulation? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34524110)

IPv4 addresses are a scarce property. And we know a mechanism which fits quite well for handling scarce properties: The free market.
I'm not at all someone who thinks the free market is the cure for everything, but this is a case which fits exactly the case for free market: Make IPv4 addresses the property of the individual holders, and allow them to buy and sell. If they get scarce, the price will grow, just as the price of land grows if land is scarce. And if the IP addresses show up as property in the balance sheets, a growing price means there's more incentive to move to IPv6, in order to sell those IPv4 addresses.

Re:Why so much regulation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34524208)

"just as the price of land grows if land is scarce"

Or money is cheap. It's not that simple now, eh? We all know how that ended up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...