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!

After IPv4, How Will the Internet Function?

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the fractal-connectivity dept.

The Internet 320

An anonymous reader writes "36 countries in the world have over 100% per-capita usage of mobile phones, and this is driving a real crunch on IPv4 addresses as more and more of these devices are data-capable. The mobile network operators are acting fast to deploy IPv6, and T-Mobile USA has had an IPv6-only trial going on for over 9 months now using NAT64 to bridge to IPv4 Internet content. It is interesting to note that the original plan for IPv6 transition, dual-stack, has failed since IPv4 addresses are effectively already exhausted for many people who want them. Dual-stack also causes many other issues and has forced the IETF to generate workarounds for end users called happy eyeballs (implying that eyeballs are not happy with dual-stack), and a big stink around DNS white-listing. How will you ensure that your network, users, and services continue to work in the address-fractured world of the future where some users have only IPv4 (AT&T ), some users have only IPv6 (mobile and machine-to-machine as well as developing countries), and other Internet nodes have both?"

cancel ×

320 comments

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

IPv7 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676538)

I think we should just drop the whole IPv6 thing and go for IPv7 already. Make it compatible with both IPv4 and IPv6 and we have no problems.

Re:IPv7 (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676652)

That already exists, it's called "using both".

Re:IPv7 (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676960)

> That already exists, it's called "using both".

Seems like that would be IPv10.

Re:IPv7 (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676658)

What happened to IPv5?

Re:IPv7 (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676736)

It sucked.

Re:IPv7 (-1)

kevorkian (142533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676818)

In the real world ( read as 'unix world' ) odd numbers are always "experimental" .. There is a 5 .. but it was never meant for mass consumption

Re:IPv7 (1)

Straterra (1045994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676902)

Except that's wrong. AIX 7.1 isn't an 'experimental' release. HP-UX 11.31 isn't an 'experimental' release. Even if you include Linux as unix (which it isn't), 2.6.35 wasn't experimental either. Just because the major release number of older Linux kernels were tagged as experimental for odd numbers (2.4.x was stable vs 2.5.x experimental), doesn't mean that it applies any more or that it applies to the 'unix world.'

Re:IPv7 (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676930)

Well, but that is true for IPv5, google it, most news sites report that, at least with the IP protocol, odd numbers indicate experimental protocols.

Re:IPv7 (2)

Straterra (1045994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677022)

Just because 'most news sites' report it, doesn't make it true. IPv5 didn't become mainstream because of what it was designed for, NOT because it had an odd number.

Maybe you should Google what IPv5 was for. Here, I'll help. Read this [oreillynet.com] .

Re:IPv7 (1)

teknofunk (54318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677270)

Just a note Straterra.... The major release number for linux kernels is the second number in this case. 2.6.35 is part of the 2.6.x stable kernel release. 2.7.x would be experimental, just as 2.5.x was....

Re:IPv7 (1)

Straterra (1045994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677372)

I know.

No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676548)

It's turtles all the way down.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676580)

"36 countries in the world have over 100% per-capita usage of mobile phones

neat trick, having over 100% per-capita usage.

Re:Huh? (1)

aaronrp (773980) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676616)

One phone for family, one phone for work, one phone for the girlfriend, one for the wife, one for the other girlfriend...

Re:Huh? (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676782)

You're either plus or minus two for me to be able to make a Lord of the Rings joke. Curse you.

Re:Huh? (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677000)

You mean like...
"One phone for family, one phone for work, one phone for the girlfriend, one for the wife, one for the other girlfriend...", and one evil company that binds them all in darkness.

Re:Huh? (1)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677076)

As Stringer Bell says:

While back, I took a stroll through the pit. I saw that kid we got running things down there, uh, Poot. Now, he got the cell phone I gave him for the business, right there on his hip. But, the nigga got another cell phone that only rang when the pussy called. Now, if this no-count nigga got two cell phones, how the fuck you gonna sell any more of them motherfuckers? Thats market saturation.

From The Wire

Re:Huh? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677326)

Don't forget one phone with DNS, so in darkness bind() them.

Re:Huh? (1)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676640)

Having over 100% per capita usage just means that there are more people with two (or more) mobile phones than there are without mobile phones. Given that in the office I work in (~25 people), at least 5 have both corporate issued phones (Blackberries) and personal phones (mostly iPhones, to my great dismay), I don't find this all that surprising.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676968)

Why does it bother you what other people choose for a personal phone? If it's truly a personal phone, you can refuse to support it, given that they have a company phone as well.

Re:Huh? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677294)

Why does it bother you what other people choose for a personal phone? If it's truly a personal phone, you can refuse to support it, given that they have a company phone as well.

He probably works at an android software development shop (just kidding...)

Re:Huh? (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677318)

More phones than people...

Who rules America? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676602)

THERE IS NO GREATER POWER in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approach- ing that of the few dozen men who control America’s mass media of news and entertainment.Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially ev- erything we know—or think we know—about events out- side our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.

It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagan- dizing of history-distorting TV “docudramas” that charac- terizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter’s choice of words, tone of voice, and facial ex- pressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustra- tions—all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.

On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the “in” crowd, the “beautiful people,” the “smart money.” They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.

Read more [natvan.com]

Dual stack failed? (4, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676618)

It seems ludicrous to claim that the dual stack idea has failed when more and more devices are suddenly finding themselves with IPv6 addresses and are putting them to use. My home and work LANs are dual stack and everything Just Works. For being a failed experiment, it works amazingly well in everyday usage.

Re:Dual stack failed? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676684)

Because, according to TFA, "If you are going to dual stack everything, everything needs both an IPv6 and an IPv4 address. And... um... we're out of IPv4 addresses."

Re:Dual stack failed? (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676722)

Right now, today, everything has an IPv4 address that needs one. Junk technology line NAT will keep IPv4 limping along for a while until IPv6 finds its momentum. But beyond that, the root problem comes down to networks not transitioning quickly enough. If they won't rapidly adopt something as relatively simple as dual stack, what makes you think they'll willingly and quickly roll out a wholesale change that actually breaks stuff?

Re:Break Stuff (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676892)

What about variations on that theme we're all hearing about the Premium Internet - can they hook that stuff up to nice new IP6 addresses, with not a titty to be found, leaving the "ghetto" kids in IP4?

Re:Dual stack failed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34677004)

Junk technology line NAT

What is junk about it? Why does every computer on a private network behind a router need their own unique, public IPv4 address? In fact if something like NAT had been used since the start we would still have plenty of space IPv4 space left instead of exhausting it due to wasteful portioning.

Re:Dual stack failed? (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677320)

wha?

the root problem comes down to jackasses like ATT, xerox, government, etc who have a class A network and aren't willing to give up some hosts even though NAT is widespread.

giving up a small amount of addresses could have given up enough IPv4 addresses to last us another 10-15 years. have they done so? no. Will they? no.

Blame greed, and naivety from when IPv4 originated.

Re:Dual stack failed? (3, Informative)

BlueBlade (123303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677434)

That's remarkably ignorant. The possibility of reclaiming those class A addresses has been studied and put aside, as it would be too costly and, assuming we get every single class A back, would only give us about 1.5 more years. This is too much cost for too little gain, so the efforts were focused on migrating to IPv6 instead.

You might want to read the wikipedia article about it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion [wikipedia.org]

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677484)

Ignorant? the only reason there would be difficulty and/or substantial cost with companies relinquishing large unused blocks of a CLASS A is because they have a horrible subnetting system already in place. aka bad network architects. The issue, from your link, and from my comment is (copied from it):

However, it can be expensive in terms of cost and time to renumber a large network, so these organizations will likely object, with legal conflicts possible. However, even if all of these were reclaimed, it would only result in postponing the date of address exhaustion.

bolds emphasizing the greed portion I mentioned here.

in reality, if someone does anything even remotely competent, it should be a 1 day process, maximum - after all, using NAT or IPv6 internally should make it even less of an issue.

It's not like DNS updates itself or something.

Meanwhile, I hope you realize that even IPv6 isn't a permanent solution nor is it intended to be, right? It's a substantially larger block of addresses, but that doesn't mean the use of those addresses is going to last as long as IPv4.

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676936)

If all the devices in your network only speak IPv6, then the missing you would just need a router that translates IPv6 to IPv4 (of course it will may also need to convert any DNS A record to a DNS AAAA record). A subset of the IPv6 range is actually allocated to cover the IPv4 address range - basically any address with a maximum value of 2^32 in the 2^128 bit range is an IPv4 address. So your IPv4 address 216.34.181.45 as an IPv6 address is ::D822:B52D.

Re:Dual stack failed? (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677094)

To be fair, we were SUPPOSED to be doing this back in 2005 or so at the latest. By this point, IPv4 was supposed to be nearly irrelevant to the world except as a historical note.

Dual stack is just fine. The people who put off even trying it untinl now are the failures.

Re:Dual stack failed? (5, Insightful)

Chang (2714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676744)

Dual stack works but is has failed in the sense that it can't be the singular solution during the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.

Re:Dual stack failed? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676888)

IPv6 is still not nearly as "polished" as IPv4. Talk at the 27th Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin: "Recent advances in IPv6 insecurities" [events.ccc.de] in about 4 hours [timeanddate.com] . The talk is in English, a live stream available. [fem-net.de]

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

Chuck_McDevitt (665265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677090)

And it never will be until we really rely on it, which won't happen until we run out of IPv4 addresses.

Re:Dual stack failed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34677234)

Deutsche Telekom, the biggest ISP in Germany, is going to roll out native IPv6 to all its DSL customers in the second half of next year.

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677012)

Not everything Just Works. My D-Link router can do ipv6 tunneling, but no matter the setting, it refuses to start DHCPv6 or issue router advertisements. From the outside, it is possible to ping the router (when I enabled that for testing), but everything inside needs a static route and static address to work. And then my router will be given a new IP address and things will stop working again.

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677082)

My D-Link router

I found your problem!

Re:Dual stack failed? (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677346)

hahahaha quite. why do people still buy a cheap $40 product when they could buy a small business solution for 4x as much that will last them forever?

I guess people don't know why cisco makes products.

oh, right, ignorance.

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677496)

If someone can't afford to buy a router that's hundreds of dollars, at least look at MikroTik (routerboard) hardware. Similar price range without the brain dead functionality of the typical D-Link or Linksys.

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

louarnkoz (805588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677014)

Quoting an AC to start the conversation, penning a lead with bold statements that are not much supported in fact... Slow news day, probably.

Pretty much every PC, server or even smart phone OS ships with dual stack. Enable IPv6 on your home gateway and poof, IPv6 in your PC lights up. AT the same time, your PC can keep using IPv4 for non IPv6 web sites, or for that old Ethernet enabled printer in the basement. It works pretty much as expected. Not having unique IPv4 addresses does not change anything to the question -- IPv4 goes through NAT, IPv6 goes direct.

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677060)

No, the implication is that dual stack fails as a general Internet solution if providers start to give their users IPv6-only... at a point in time long before all IPv4 users and services have dual stack. The fact is, at the moment IPv6-only users can access only a small percentage of what the Internet has to offer. If you're an AT&T user, there's no real reason to complain about your wretched ISP not having any immediate plans to give you native IPv6, because you can always go out and get yourself a /48 from a tunnel broker, such as Hurricane Electric [he.net] , or SixXS [sixxs.net] . However, I've not yet seen the reverse: tunnel brokers that are willing to offer their customers one or more public IPv4 addresses via an IPv6 tunnel. At the rate things are going, though, I'll bet there will be a market for this sooner as opposed to later.

Re:Dual stack failed? (1)

Chuck_McDevitt (665265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677086)

The trick is to handle the case where you CANT get an IPv4 address. Dual stack normally assumes you can get one IPv4 address along with your block of IPv6 addresses.

The solution is probably carrier-grade NAT for IPv4 (so you only get a private IPv4 address) with dual-stack. But that has it's own problems.

Re:Dual stack failed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34677494)

The problem is not in how it works, but why we need it: dual-stack mode was intended as a (the) transition mechanism, because the IETF did not want to burden IPv6 with the backwards compatibility cruft of IPv4.. In other words, the transition to IPv6 should have been completed before we ran (will run) out of IPv4 addresses, not started just before, for dual-stack mode to be called a success.

With the situation as it currently is, dual-stack mode has failed as a transition mechanism: if things had happened the way the IETF wanted, there would not have been a single IPv4-only service still operational, and we would not have needed nat64.

IPv6 of course (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676630)

IPv6 of course.

Client sites have nothing to worry about straight away, unless they want to access the new IPv6 server sites that will be coming online. The issue will be new sites needing IP addresses will be IPv6 only. If everyone started the move to IPv6 today, then the internet, from the average joe point of view, will look pretty much the same. The problem is that they will start seeing the breakages because we are almost out of IPv4 addresses before anyone has really started upgrading their infrastructure to IPv6.

Re:IPv6 of course (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676912)

IPv6 of course.

The issue will be new sites needing IP addresses will be IPv6 only.

"Not an issue, it's a feature!"

This almost out nonsense needs to stop (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677058)

Geeks should know better. The way it is talked about, you'd think in a couple days someone will plug in a device and there'll be no more IPs. Not hardly. We are approaching the first milestone in an eventual crunch. That is that there will be no more addresses not assigned to a registrar. The remaining class-As will be handed out to the regional registrars. While that means at the highest level we are "out" that doesn't mean we are out on a user level.

I'm not saying that we don't need to move to IPv6 but people on /. keep talking like we are going to be out of every single IP address real soon. No, rather we will be starting a process of scarcity. So far there's been no real scarcity of IP addresses. That will change. However all that means is that costs will change.

That will actually probably be a good thing for IPv6 adoption. If you are a company and want some static IPs and your ISP says "Sure, you can have IPv4 addresses at $30/month each, or as many IPv6 addresses as you want for free," well maybe you decide there's good reason to go with IPv6 and upgrade your stuff.

Re:IPv6 of course (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677404)

IPv6 machines all have to run in dual stack, which means they all need an IPv4 address, which means IPv6 is solving exactly zero problems.

If everyone started the move to IPv6 today, then the internet, from the average joe point of view, will look pretty much the same.

To quote Robert Bolt: "I wish we could all have good luck, all the time! I wish we had wings! I wish rainwater was beer! But it isn't!".

The IPv6 transition plan amounts to--and in fact simply is--wishful thinking. If everyone, everywhere transitions to IPv6, all at once, everything will be OK. And indeed that is the case. However, it is also the case that everyone, everywhere will never transition to IPv6 all at once, in good order, or even in time and in some order.

A critical part of the IPv6 upgrade was the transition plan. The planners of IPv6 have botched this vital part of their standard completely, and as such IPv6 is less than useless. It is in fact a severe hindrance in the effort to find a solution to the IPv4 address space crunch, as it is standing in the way of a real and workable solution to the problem.

So no, IPv6 is not the solution. IPv6 has simply become part of the problem.

What a load of nonsense (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676648)

No country has close to 100% of its residents connected via multiple mobile Internet connections at the same time, and many countries provide a NATed private IP anyway.

Dual stack is an absolutely fine solution for the current Internet and the "many other issues" usually means someone is about to sell an over-complicated and unnecessary transition solution. But wait, "Happy Eyeballs", ah... today's salesman comes from Cisco. And I find it very difficult to read a proposed standard for seamless transition where the author cannot spell "seamless".

Re:What a load of nonsense (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676706)

> No country has close to 100% of its residents connected via multiple mobile Internet connections at the same time

My Android phone syncs to Google while I'm not paying attention. If I had an iPhone, it would do similar thing for handling push messages.

> many countries provide a NATed private IP anyway.

Err... you mean company, right?

Re:What a load of nonsense (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676830)

My Android phone syncs to Google while I'm not paying attention.

OK; does that mean you have to maintain a static IP connection 24/7? Does the same apply to even a large minority?

Err... you mean company, right?

I was thinking of typing that but decided against it. The practice generally varies by country/region and telecoms corporations are so intertwined with national and transnational governments that it would be intellectually dishonest to imply otherwise.

Large-scale NAT in Qatar (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677074)

many countries provide a NATed private IP anyway.

Err... you mean company, right?

Countries too [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What a load of nonsense (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677204)

And the "solution" is only needed because so many have screwed up their v6 so badly. Often because they didn't realize that when vendors (like Cisco) said v6 ready, they meant horribly crippled in capacity but technically it will route a v6 packet or 2 so marketing called it good.

Private IP ranges (1)

leadfoot (159248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676662)

Why aren't the wireless carriers using the private IP ranges? Why does my smartphone need it's own public IP address?

Re:Private IP ranges (2)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676758)

Because a lot of services don't work well through NAT. VPN and voice services are good examples.

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

bromoseltzer (23292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676822)

Funny, my home NATed systems seem to work with VPNs, Skype, and all that. What's the problem again? I suppose it's something to do with the routers?

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676946)

it doesnt scale up well. NAT is also somewhat heavy on routers and massive NAT tables would require investment in equipment.

essentially all modern computing platforms are IP6 capable, the best choice is to make the switch and not mess with large scale NAT.

Re:Private IP ranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34677098)

IPv6 already requires a massive investment in IPv6 capable routers and upgrades to other network elements.

Carrier-grade NAT requires some processing power but it's not particularly difficult to implement. Given the number of network elements that telecoms already manage, one more isn't going to break them.

IPv6 is the better solution but realistically we're not going to cutover overnight.

Re:Private IP ranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676950)

how not surprising, ignorance and arrognace on slashdot.

first of all your router have a public ip so it can, you know, route stuff. we're talking about network wide natting here.

how the situation changes if the nat is network wide? after you are natted by sprint and the other party too is natted by its company, you have no control on forwarding and hole punching could get you only so far because of the limited port an ip could have assigned - and that is only when hole punching actually works.

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676958)

Funny, my home NATed systems seem to work with VPNs, Skype, and all that. What's the problem again? I suppose it's something to do with the routers?

This is partly because a number of these services use NAT busting techniques and I suspect in other cases you have had to do port mapping on your router.

Re:Private IP ranges (2)

expat.iain (1337021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676972)

IPv4 NAT can cause problems for some communications protocols. These include, but are not limited to:

  • PPTP
  • Bittorrent
  • SIP

Things will only get worse on IPv4 when the ISPs increasingly move towards carrier NAT [wikipedia.org] as a solution to avoid the perceived complexities if IPv6, when really it's just an excuse to do less work and squeeze more money out of the users.

Re:Private IP ranges (2)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677072)

Skype relies on other people running Skype with a public IP address acting as a proxy. When everybody goes NAT, Skype breaks down as well.

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677096)

my home NATed systems seem to work with VPNs, Skype, and all that. What's the problem again?

Using a proxy server to communicate between two machines behind NAT doubles billable Internet traffic, costs money for the provider of the proxy server, and creates a point of failure at the proxy server.

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677292)

Here is an example of one that doesn't
I wrote a program that provides streaming text to the hearing impaired. It uses a smaller webserver on the providers computer that serves a java applet and then streams the text to it.
If the provider is behind a NAT router they are unreachable by the viewers unless they are on the same network.
That can be a problem sometimes with remote events.

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

freakingme (1244996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676764)

Generally you will want to communicate with the outside world. And using something private in public doesn't work that well really.

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676798)

A lot are

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

Chuck_McDevitt (665265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676806)

How can you route packets to the location the cell phone is currently roaming at?

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676976)

How can you route packets to the location the cell phone is currently roaming at?

Your phone would probably need a unique ID and a service where it could announce its current IP address. When you try connecting to your cell phone, then a check with that service would be made and you have the IP you need to talk on. The simplest of solution would be for your phone to have a unique DNS name and then using dynamic IP service. In this case, even if the IP is in flux the name isn't. The rest is basic network architecture.

TCP handoff? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677112)

The simplest of solution would be for your phone to have a unique DNS name and then using dynamic IP service.

Which would still cause connections to time out and the parties to have to reconnect at the new IP address. Or is there a way to hand off a TCP connection from one IP to another in the same way that a cellular voice connection is handed off from one tower to another?

Re:Private IP ranges (2)

Chang (2714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676910)

Your smartphone might not need a public IP address but it certainly could benefit by having a unique IP address within the mobile operators network, right?

Do you know China Mobile has hundreds of millions of subscribers. Did you know even T-Mobile has 150 million subscribers globally? Any guess as to how large private IP space is? Hint - it isn't big enough for any of the major operators to supply a unique IP within their networks.

These large operators have had to choose between partitioning their subscribers which makes phone-to-phone applications a mess or using bogons (IPv4 space registered to other people!) which is what T-Mobile had been doing, or they can choose sanity, which for them includes IPv6 as it is large enough to handle these mobile networks address needs without breaking a sweat.

T-Mobile decided that IPv6 only with a NAT64 back to IPv4 is the right way to go for the future. It's doesn't solve all their issues but it's a pretty clean way for them to solve it with the minimum of cost and near maximum usability.

Other vendors are betting on IPv4 partitioning with IPv6 capability. If T-Mobile is successful with their approach it's likely IPv6 only on handsets will become the defacto standard. After all, why should your phone run two IP stacks when one can get the job done?

Each region could have its own /8 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677152)

Any guess as to how large private IP space is? Hint - it isn't big enough for any of the major operators to supply a unique IP within their networks.

How big is a service region? Each region could get its own /8 of sixteen million IPv4 addresses in 10.* for connections back to the IPv4 net.

These large operators have had to choose between partitioning their subscribers which makes phone-to-phone applications a mess

Or they could just require a land-based proxy server between phones for phone-to-phone applications where neither side is on an "enterprise" service level agreement. According to acceptable use policies that I've read, "running a server" isn't something that one is supposed to do on a telephone.

Re:Private IP ranges (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677040)

A smartphone may have rich applications or be used for tethering, opening it up to all sorts of awkwardness. If game servers and peer 2 peer applications try to run and fail, it will look bad.

Also, as others note, carrier level NAT is a demanding proposition that will degrade performance. With NAT64, the same thing is incurred, but there is the likelihood that over time, a smaller proportion of traffic will hit the NAT alleviating the degradation. That possibility does not exist with v4 only NAT using private addresses.

Run a server and get TOS'd (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677192)

game servers

Have you read the typical Acceptable Use Policy of home Internet access lately? Game servers are supposed to be coloed in datacenters the way CCP, Blizzard, Zynga, etc. do it, not using one of the clients as a server the way most Xbox Live games do it.

peer 2 peer applications

Carriers have been seeking affiliations with MPAA studios in order to use "watch movies" as a bullet point to attract paying subscribers, and most noninfringing files too big for HTTP are also too big for the 5 GB/mo cap on typical 3G plans. So why would carriers make effort to allow peer-to-peer file sharing applications?

The stone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34676716)

Interestig site:

http://alldownloadlist.blogspot.com/

Regards!

Mobile, home and small office equipment? (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676788)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that a large part of the IPv4 space is used by smartphones, ebook readers, home and small office equipment.
Either all that stuff needs be upgraded to IPv6 or operators will need to deploy IPv6-to-IPv4 gateways.
If you're lucky you can mod your routers with OpenWRT [openwrt.org] or its derivatives [dd-wrt.com] .

Re:Mobile, home and small office equipment? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677084)

Much of that will get private addresses (even phones do; IIRC my iPhone gets something in 172.16/12 through 3G, though otherwise can and will be found). Additionally, DD-WRT has some builds without ipv6 enabled, so be careful there.

Re:Mobile, home and small office equipment? (1)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677214)

Most of those items are using IPv6, at least now. One of the ITU 4G requirements is that the hardware can use IPv6. Most phones bought in the last four years already have IPv6 address from the provider. I noticed that I loose my address on my phone when I leave an EVDO or LTE area with my phone. So maybe 1x networks lack the ability to carry IPv6, really don't know the answer. However, most phones either use IPv6 to talk to tower and IPv4 the rest of the way or dual-stack, depends on the phone and carrier. The lack of any provider having a single common way of rolling out IPv6 has made the implementation of a wholly IPv6 network difficult.

Don't know about eBooks like Kindle, Nook, etc...

The short answer: (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676792)

Just fine.

lots of IP4 only cable / dsl modems and routers (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676838)

lots of IP4 only cable / dsl modems and routers are out there. Do any of E-mta (that the cable force you to rent (if you have cable phone) do IPV6?)

IPv4i -- string theory extends to extra dimensions (1)

backspaces (747193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676932)

You clearly have not heard of our solution in the lab: use complex numbers for each octet. This expands the space of addresses to Great Big, although finite due to use of integer values of the real and imaginary part.

Yes, yes I know what you're saying: it takes more bits, right? Wrong. String theorists have applied extra dimensions to the octet encoding so as to only use 4 bits in this space, with the additional values residing comfortably in The Other Ones.

Sorry to have left you out of the loop, but we knew we could keep getting by with our current modification to IPv4 .. just add an i.

Re:IPv4i -- string theory extends to extra dimensi (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677038)

This can be used to increase storage space too. I found that the simplest way to enable the OS to do this is to clear the allocation bitmap. This allows it to use the imaginary space on the disk. It's worked so far, and I've stored about 50% more on my disk. It's been holding up pretty well and I haven't seen any cross-link *&()N#%()K&K_*)%_*()hj JFIF PNG TXT

Wrong problem (2)

thogard (43403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34676994)

We aren't out of IPv4 addresses, we are out of IPv4 block allocations. This started back in 1992 when Cisco and Bay Networks decided that forcing new allocations into consolidated routes was easier than building routers that could cope with 2^24 (or even 2^32) unique routes. The original / notation wasn't about talking about /16 or 24 but /36 was a way to describe taking 4 extra bits from the source and destination port range. That system would allow most existing hardware (even from the late 80s) to work without any changes and allow things that know about the newer way to cope with more advanced addressing for things like vhosts.

Easy.. (5, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677016)

Thanks to finally embracing NAT64, this becomes easy.

If you are providing 'server' access, you pretty much *have* to get an IPv4 address, and preferably an IPv6, but not absolutely required for now. Short term, don't sweat it, medium term go dual stack at first opportunity that presents itself, long term you may take down the IPv4 network one day, but don't explicitly plan when that day will come. The common strategy may continue to be ignore v6 entirely, however moving dual stack at your pace ensures that in the slim, but real possibility that your next-hop provider stops IPv4 routing or starts penalizing IPv4 use via unreasonable fees won't put you in a tight spot. The scenario of next-hop penalizing/dropping v4 is the only scenario I see as sufficient motivation to get servers to bother with v6 at all. I think even brand new servers will do what it takes to secure IPv4 space, which may free up some given the next point...

If you are setting up a network as 'clients', you can get by with either IPv6 or IPv4 for a while. Giving dual stack when available is nice, but whatever you have would be sufficient. ISPs without IPv4 addresses available for new clients should rapidly pursue IPv6 for residential customers and give them most internet via NAT64 on their end. Doing IPv4 private addresses would doom them to crappy service indefinitely, whilst IPv6 would only be semi-crappy for a more temporary interval. If you *really* want v6 to catch on, then start allowing v4 addresses to be carved up more free-market style. All technical experts agree that this would completely fubar the v4 network performance in aggregate, but you would entice adoption of v6+NAT64 with the profitable opportunity to reclaim addresses and sell them to places that *really* need them. The v6 network would be nice and cleanly routed, and getting on the v6 network just becomes that much more important.

Some would argue that any sort of NAT at the carrier plays right into the hands of those who hate P2P networks, including NAT64 as those behind NAT64 are unreachable by peers who are v4 only. However, the reality is there are two possible outcomes, residences getting 10/8, 172.16/12, or 192.168/16 which *completely* breaks P2P (and probably many wireless routers presuming those prefixes won't come from the WAN), or NAT64 where the P2P graph may not be as connected, but all v6 peers can reach each other. Since P2P designs are inherently tolerant of unreliable ability to reach peers, this should suffice for a while.

Major architects in v6 world advocated the dual-stack method as the way to theoretically move on with no thought to the practical motivations to move forward. They hated NAT in every way as it breaks the peering model they hold dear. They hated accepting the practical view that most of the internet are clients and few are servers. If they had embraced it from the beginning, then I suspect most residences would be v6 by now.

Re:Easy.. (2)

Chuck_McDevitt (665265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677110)

Giving people a private IPv4 isn't so bad if they also have a real public IPv6 block.

Sure, it will break all the P2P traffic that relies on IPv4-only, but that will quickly force those services to support IPv6.

Reclaim what isn't used (1)

NetServices (1479949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677062)

If IP4 space isn't being used it should be reclaimed by ARIN

Re:Reclaim what isn't used (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677380)

If IP4 space isn't being used it should be reclaimed by ARIN

Prove "isn't being used" in a cost effective non-spoofable manner. I guarantee its impossible.

For that matter, just defining "isn't being used" is going to be a heck of a job.

Native DD-WRT support? (1)

lp_bugman (623152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677114)

I'm waiting for DD-WRT to have integrated (as in the web fronted) support for ip6tables and NAT64. I'm not going to expose everything under my roof to the jungle.

Fairly simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34677118)

The remnants of the IPv4-only internet will become increasingly smaller and increasingly easier to control - the large-scale NAT is one example that takes much power away from users. I doubt it will vanish, and it may instead become the main target of censorship in the future, to the point where IPv6 users are treated with the same inherent suspicion as users of Tor and BitTorrent.

It will prety much suck for quite some time. (5, Insightful)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677126)

The problem is the asshats that came up with IPV6. It should be scrapped here and now. IPV6 is just plain and simple flat out stupid.

Using a hexadecimal address was pure stupidity. All you needed to do was turn each segment of an IP address into a word sized ( 64 bit addressing ) or a long sized ( the magic 128 bit ) value instead of a byte sized value since:

2600000.35.1254.1785

Is one hell of a lot easier to remember then

2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334.

And using the colon for address separation is equally as stupid since that is how we designate port numbers. Ohh wait I know don't forget to surround the unrememberable POS with square brackets!

To make IPV6 useful it requires anything and everything to have a DNS entry since it is pretty much unrememberable and quite frankly I have devices that I never want in the DNS system yet I will be pretyy much forced to since trying to remember an IPV6 address will give me a fucking stroke.

And lets not forget you omit parts of the address eg: 2001:0db8:85a3::0000:8a2e:0370:7334 but ONLY once! I mean why did they even bother with this crap, is that supposed to make it easier?

IPV6 was written by a bunch of head up their ass academics, and even if the members of the committee were not academics their head was still firmly planted in their ass.

The guys who came up with IPV4 new they would have to work with it and made it pretty damn simple in most respects, but these clowns have turned something that should have just made the address space bigger into to something that will require massive kludges to transition since it will pretty much cause a mandatory replacement of pretty much 90% of the hardware out there.

Never ever let an academic design anything. They will fuck it up every time.

Re:It will prety much suck for quite some time. (1)

psydeshow (154300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677334)

trying to remember an IPV6 address will give me a fucking stroke

Awesome post.

There just isn't anything amazing enough in v6 to warrant the switch from an understandable, base10 system to an insanely complex base16 one, especially when half the people smart enough to understand it are genuinely concerned that it will break everything.

Why didn't they just use base36 addresses instead? At least those would be nice and short.

Re:It will prety much suck for quite some time. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677460)

Why not four UTF-32/UCS-4 characters instead of four decimal numbers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-32/UCS-4 [wikipedia.org]

Re:It will prety much suck for quite some time. (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677400)

All you needed to do was turn each segment of an IP address into a word sized ( 64 bit addressing ) or a long sized ( the magic 128 bit ) value instead of a byte sized value since:

2600000.35.1254.1785

Is one hell of a lot easier to remember then

2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334.

Whats your plan for delegated reverse DNS for a /48 allocation? (This should be interesting)

Re:It will prety much suck for quite some time. (1)

MaerD (954222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677452)

For those who are modding the parent troll: He's not trolling, He's right (insulting aside).

The number one obstacle to IPV6 deployment is an inability to make sense of the addressing scheme. If it's hard to wrap your head around what should be a simple concept, it stops working.
People can understand addresses that are blocks of numbers like IPV4. Expanding the numbers used above 255, or adding a 5th space would have made MORE sense from a humans point of view. It really is like it was designed by people who forget that DNS is not self-administering, and people have to deal with these things even if DNS has gone down.

Re:It will prety much suck for quite some time. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677482)

It really is like it was designed by people who forget that DNS is not self-administering, and people have to deal with these things even if DNS has gone down.

You should be thankful they got rid of DNS A6 and stuck to AAAA records. Oh you'd really love those.

Once you set up your automation, the whole situation is really quite boring.

Why assign IPv4 to phones? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677132)

Make a 'Your Own IP' feature for the cell providers which gives you the option of your own unique IP. Everyone else can just pull from a rotating pool of ___ IPs.

I don't think most average iPhone users give a crap if they have IPv4/IPv6 support or what their IP is at the moment, as long as their phone works and they can play Angry Birds.

Re:Why assign IPv4 to phones? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677430)

Make a 'Your Own IP' feature for the cell providers which gives you the option of your own unique IP. Everyone else can just pull from a rotating pool of ___ IPs .... as long as their phone works

And when you have more subscribers than IP space available...

Even RFC1918 space 10/8 if by some miracle of perfect efficiency were used 100% maybe in a giant worldwide VLAN, you'd only support 16 megacustomers. But thats small potatoes for the big monopoly cellphone providers.

Lets say you decide to steal the entire ipv4 space. thats only 4 billion cellphones, so 1/3 the population won't get one.

It turns out to be way more expense and work to patch around the limitations of ipv4 than to upgrade to ipv6 and be done with it.

You know, as long as I can get porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34677316)

I'll be happy.

Movistar - Argentina - Mobile - 10.x.x.x network (1)

yorugua (697900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34677402)

Movistar in Argentina uses 10.x.x.x network addressing on Mobile phones last time I checked.
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>