Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

312 comments

Egypt ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063564)

Egypt has just given up theirs ...

Re:Egypt ... (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063582)

Not given up, just a gag order on all internet activity.

Re:Egypt ... (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063600)

Awww! but they all smell like camel...

Apparently IPv4 blocks are not like Doritos!

Watch out for those Pyramid s(p|c)ams then (4, Funny)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063674)

Hi, I'm General Tutan Khamun. As commander of the Royal Camel Battalion, I was in charge of the valuable ancient artifacts of the Arab Republic of Egypt. However because of ongoing chaos in the country, numerous treasures have been lost. For a small fee, you can help me recover these artifacts and return them to their rightful owners. Please send me your contact detail$$$ and I will call you back.

May Pharaoh be with you!

Re:Watch out for those Pyramid s(p|c)ams then (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064224)

No, no, it's:

Hi, I'm General Tutan Khamun. As commander of the Royal Camel Battalion, I was in charge of paying the families of military dead in the Arab Republic of Egypt. However because of ongoing chaos in the country, numerous records have lost, and many dead have no recorded heir. Therefore, the payouts to families are large.

We need a person outside Egypt to serve as an intermediary to help transfer funds to heirs in the United States. In exchange for your help, we will pay you the some of TEN MILLION $10,000,000 U.S. DOLLARS dollars for helping us transfer these funds.

Please send me your contact information and I will call you back.

(Note: All misspellings, missing words, etc. are deliberate except for those that weren't.)

Re:Egypt ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064018)

Ok, it's messed up, but I laughed at that pretty good.

My penis have been allocated to your ass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063594)

PenisV6 that has been up your mom's /8.

IANA's final, not ARIN's final (5, Informative)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063596)

triggering ARIN's final distribution of blocks to the RIRs

I think you mean triggering IANA's final distribution. ARIN is one of the 5 RIRs who will receive a final /8 from IANA.

So the question is... (0)

Apothem (1921856) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063598)

Will all hell break loose when this happens? Will it be Y2K all over again, except this time it's something legitimate?

Re:So the question is... (4, Interesting)

ss_teven (569013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063634)

Unlikely, more like 'NAT' for regular users and pay extra $$$ for a real IP.

Re:So the question is... (2)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063640)

You can hope. In reality, consumer ISPs will probably start using NAT since they gain little from customers doing anything that requires a public IP.

The majority of customers won't notice and the rest will suffer crippled services or be asked to pay a surcharge for a non NAT IP address. That has the potential to raise revenue for ISPs rather than implementing IPv6 which would incur expenditure.

Get a tunnel. (3)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063762)

SixXS [sixxs.net]
Hurricane Electric [tunnelbroker.net]
And others.

Re:Get a tunnel. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063798)

So... Do these 'tunnel' thing works through NAT?

Re:Get a tunnel. (2)

Suzuran (163234) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064394)

Usually.

multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063862)

multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff!

Re:multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff! (2)

bn557 (183935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064136)

multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff!

Consumer ISPs will just charge you an extra 2.99 per device to have a true router (behind their nat) so they can sell 8000 people 192.168.0.2, etc, etc.

Re:So the question is... (5, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063702)

Y2K was perfectly legitimate. It was only through heroic efforts that programmers were able to overcome years of managerial negligence and get the changes made in a knick of time. As is typical, since the herculean effort caused nothing to happen the world yawned and assumed the geeks were just moaning over nothing all along.

In this case, it's not a flag day where what worked a second ago no longer does. It's more along the line of pain slowly creeping up on you day by day until one day you realize it's actually excruciating.

It's been building for a few years, but few have seen the pain. In the '90s when you wanted a class C allocation, just ask and it was yours. Since then, the standards for justification have gotten tighter and tighter until you almost have to either exaggerate of consult a fortune teller to fill them out appropriately.

It WILL get worse, and it will ramp up quickly, but it won't be like Y2K might have been.

On a side note, a Y2K related issue (leap day implementing the 4 year and 100 year rule but not the 400 year rule) did result in a significant nuclear event at a Japanese fuel reprocessing facility.

Re:So the question is... (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064108)

Y2K was perfectly legitimate. It was only through heroic efforts that programmers were able to overcome years of managerial negligence and get the changes made in a knick of time.

When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. -- God, (Futurama, 2002)

where are IPV6 routers and modems?? (2)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063854)

where are IPV6 routers and modems??

Where are the router firmware updates with IPV6? What about all the Cable and DSL modems? What about cable boxes? they get IP's and run on the cable network.

Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? (3, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063936)

Some consumer routers have already supported it for some time: e.g. the Apple Airport Express, some NetComm routers, Fritz!Box (popular in Europe, mostly). For the rest, the firmware will be forthcoming, no doubt. My DSL modem/router manufacturer (Billion, http://www.billion.com/ [billion.com] ) has already released firmware updates to some models to enable native dual stack. My particular model is due to be updated 'Q1 2011', so within the next two months. Which is great as my ISP already has native IPv6 available to its end customers now and a fully IPv6 backbone, so it should be a seamless transition.

Having said that there are slack router manufacturers and crappy ISPs that have sat on their hands for too long and will now have to madly scramble. (Or implement carrier grade NAT which is an ugly kludge - I would immediately leave any such ISP that implemented it).

There is one small problem however: some cheap/old routers don't physically have the onboard memory to fit a firmware containing both an IPv4 and IPv6 stack. So there will definitely be some users that need to physically replace their hardware, unfortunately.

Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064300)

What about a simple IPv6 router that works just like our IPv4 home gateway NAT routers today?

I mean, so far playing with IPv6, to have an all-IPv6 network, each PC gets 3 IPv6 addresses. They get a link-local address (which stays on the local network and won't cross a router). Then if I want to enter their IP addresses, I really should use something in the FC00::/64 range (which makes for easy typing), to avoid having to type in the cryptic strings instead. Finally, to get on the 'net, they have a random /64 prefix assigned by my ISP so it can pass through the routers properly.

What. A. Mess. And should your ISP decide to renumber their network, boom, every machine on the network gets a new IP address.

Where's our NAT64 devices - port forwarding works fine for me, and I can use it to ignore the link-local addresses (assigning FC00::/64 addresses as I do 192.168.x.x ones). I don't care what address my ISP gives me, and if they renumber my network, big whoop. Worst I have to do is reboot my router, not have to go and make sure every machine (PC, consoles, amps, tivos, etc - you can bet the number of embedded devices will climb rapidly) latched onto the fact that my network got renumbered.

Want quick and easy IPv6 deployment? Get us a box that we can drop in for our existing IPv4 routers and where I don't have to learn or explain all the frakking IPv6 crap to my mom who just wants her iPad, iPhone, and PC to work.

And IPv6 isn't the panacea of endpoint connectivity that everyone has been hoping for - ignoring NAT64 stuff, we've got firewalls and the like that'll break endpoint connectivity like it has for IPv4.

Try DD-WRT (4, Interesting)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064160)

where are IPV6 routers and modems??

Everywhere. Pretty much all good routers are IPv6 capable, just not out of the box (unfortunately). You have to do things like put the DD-WRT open source firmware on them. On the plus side though, if you do that you don't just get IPv6, you additionally pretty much turn your home router into an enterprise router.

Note that some companies like Buffalo are starting to ship their routers with DD-WRT on them by default, so we are starting to see IPv6 enabled routers out of the box. As for the other companies, they are probably holding off in the hopes that people are forced to buy more routers from them in the future, rather than running what they currently have. Once the public becomes aware that IPv6 is a desirable feature, then they will start selling them.

I know where to get some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063602)

Maybe we can recycle Egypt's, they don't seem to want them...

Re:I know where to get some (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063912)

Maybe we can recycle Egypt's, they don't seem to want them...

Too bad nobody actually has the guts to do that. Take everything allocated to Egypt and give it to someone else. If they complain, just say "You shut down the Internet in your country, you obviously didn't want them anymore."

Re:I know where to get some (2)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064100)

Take everything allocated to Egypt and give it to someone else. If they complain, just say "You shut down the Internet in your country, you obviously didn't want them anymore."

So you would take away the Egyptian peoples' IPv4 access forever, because their tyrannical ruler engaged in Internet censorship?

I'm not sure I see the logic behind that.

Re:I know where to get some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064404)

Im not sure I see the logic in you not using quote tags.

Re:I know where to get some (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064124)

Too bad nobody actually has the guts to do that. Take everything allocated to Egypt and give it to someone else. If they complain, just say "You shut down the Internet in your country, you obviously didn't want them anymore."

That could be reasonable... however, the RIR community that has the power to make that decision is AfriNIC. They won't consider it due to the permanent damage it would cause.

If Egypt permanently disconnects, and if they revoked the IP addresses, they would be available for further assignments in the African region, but I don't think there is that much demand for IP space in that region, so the result is the IPs would sit unused for 1-2 years, probably.

GONE (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063608)

"VESPENE GEYSER EXHAUSTED"

Re:GONE (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063738)

I like this analogy best since vespene geysers actually have limitless capacity after depletion.

Re:GONE (1)

teh dave (1618221) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063926)

Not anymore they don't... (In StarCraft II, gas properly runs out just like minerals do)

Re:GONE (1)

spydum (828400) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063858)

Pretty sure you can still mine vespene gas after it's depleted, just has lower yields.

Take anything allocated to Egypt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063628)

Egypt are not using theirs?

Comcast user here... (2)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063632)

I seem to have failed an online IPv6 test [test-ipv6.com] . Should I be worried?

Re:Comcast user here... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063712)

Whether you should be worried depends on what you use your internet connection for.

If you only use it for conventional client stuff you shouldn't worry too much, I would expect important services to remain available on IPV4 for a long time. On the other hand if you do stuff that relies on incoming connections you should be aware that at some point your IPV4 service may be put behind ISP level NAT to free up IPv4 addresses for more important uses (though comcast is in a better position than most on this because they are running some of their internal infrastructure on public IPv4 and planning to migrate it to IPv6 which will free up addresses to use for end users). You may get offered IPv6 service as well but it's far from certain and even if you do there is no guarantee that the people trying to connect to you will have IPV6.

Re:Comcast user here... (3, Informative)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063716)

Not yet, Comcast is currently trialling IPv6 in select locations (i.e. San Francisco, NYC, Boston, etc.). They expect to roll out IPv6 to the rest of us some time this year. (You can keep up with their progress here [comcast6.net] .)

Meanwhile, if you really want IPv6 for whatever reason, I set up a tunnel with Hurricane Electric. After configuring my computers and router (DD-WRT, IPv6 is fully supported), I had IPv6 both internally and externally (i.e. IPv6 DHCP and access to the IPv6 Internet). You can set your own up here [tunnelbroker.net] .
(I took it down shortly afterward, because I don't know about any security ramifications this would have.)

Re:Comcast user here... (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063744)

Hmm, the full test requires some browser holes (intentional). It doesn't work under Chromium 9 (dev version), even if I have JavaScript enabled (by default).

OTOH I get 2/3 white-on-green check marks on the simple [test-ipv6.com] version of the test for methods "IPv4" and "IPv4 or IPv6". I get a broken (no) image for the third method, pure "IPv6".

Re:Comcast user here... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063834)

Except for a godawful text display, it works just fine for me on Chromium 9. 10/10, 10/10. Default settings, no extensions other than their fake AdBlock since I don't use Chromium for anything but a rare test, so there must be something amiss in your configuration

Re:Comcast user here... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063746)

If you got 7/10 on IPv4, all is ok. The explanation says it clearly that no problems are expected for you when AAAA records will start being published, as your system will gracefully ignore them.

Even with fully working IPv6 you may get less than the max if your DNS server isn't fully up to scratch, like Google's 8.8.8.8.

Re:Comcast user here... (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063752)

Have you set up to use Comcast's 6to4 or 6rd tunnel service? I am on Comcast with 6rd set up and I get 9/10 (only warning is that Comcast DNS isn't on v6 yet).

Have a look here [comcast6.net] for 6rd instructions. Otherwise, set up 6to4 using 192.88.99.1.

Re:Comcast user here... (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063890)

not really, if you have noticed, you can't even by a consumer grade ipv6 compatible router or network printer...

Re:Comcast user here... (0)

Undead Waffle (1447615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064074)

Being a Comcast user is always a good reason to be worried, so yes.

Re:Comcast user here... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064080)

Don't worry, you're on Comcast. You have enough problems without worrying about IPv4 vs v6 as it is.

Re:Comcast user here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064084)

Depends. Is it a router problem, or with your computer(not every OS version supports IPV6), or is it Comcast that is having the problem?

hard to say from here, without seeing your results.

Egypt (0)

OKCommuter (1979362) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063644)

Perhaps Egypt has some to spare?

Something Something Egypt Something Something (3, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063654)

Hey, has anybody said anything witty about Egypt yet?

Remember, I said witty.

Re:Something Something Egypt Something Something (2)

jon3k (691256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063688)

Nope, just the same joke about half a dozen times (out of about 10 posts)

Re:Something Something Egypt Something Something (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063728)

"I didn't know you were Egyptian."

"Huh? I'm not Egyptian."

"Really? 'Cause you're in de-Nile."

BOOM!

Re:Something Something Egypt Something Something (1)

psithurism (1642461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063910)

How many IP 4 blocks do you think Egypt does not need anymore? That ought to help us out for awhile.

Sorry, this story must be censored (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063662)

"final distribution of five /8 blocks"

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times.

You do NOT talk about the final five!

Re:Sorry, this story must be censored (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064000)

You do NOT talk about the final five!

Final five? I thought is was the Final Four, and that it was usually in March.

Who Cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063664)

Talk to me in 12-18 months when it actually starts having an effect.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063700)

Then it will be too late.

Re:Who Cares? (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063772)

How would I do that with you sitting in that backwater swamp of IPv4 with your fingers jammed in your ears prattling on about how you don't believe in that newfangled IPv6 thing and that it's probably the work of the devil?

Re:Who Cares? (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063818)

Indeed. It's just a stupid number. How did we ever manage to get ourselves into a position where we could run out of numbers.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

grantek (979387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064614)

To answer that seriously: it's because high-speed routing is done by ASICs (custom-designed chips) that can't easily cope with an extensible/dynamic system. You could have something similar to the Unicode system where you can have an infinite-sized address, but you can't process that in one clock cycle of a backbone router, so we have to compromise and set a very large but static size for the address. Several decades ago it was significantly more expensive to build a router that routed IPv6-sized addresses, so the compromise was much bigger than it is today.

Also, many security vulnerabilities/bugs in software are due to logical errors in handling dynamically-allocated memory. There would be an additional epic pile of fail in the computing world if internet addresses were like that.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064172)

Well my backwater swamp is already Dual Stack, and it's been that way since my ISP start testing IPv6 - being my point because it allows me to do SFA more, it WILL allow me to do SFA in the near future, and will only START doing something in the distant future when everyone has to move over to 6...

So, like I said, save your QQ until it's actually about something, because the time for panic isn't now.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064288)

SFA [wikipedia.org] ? QQ? WTF?

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064520)

Shit Fucking All.
QQ=Crying

Re:Who Cares? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064596)

Try to get yourself a /24 and you'll see that there IS an effect. It used to be that if you asked for a /24 you got it with no further questions. The way it is now, I'm expecting them to start requiring the results of your last colonoscopy and your astrological chart.

The first effects of people being on dual stack will be to cap how expensive v4 addresses might get. If enough people are dual stack, there's not much chance to price gouge as they run out.

Besides that, you can't see the dancing kame [kame.net] on v4 :-)

Don't worry more IPs are coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063706)

I hear Egypt is giving all their IPs back...

which will roll out first? (2)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063794)

IPv6 or Duke Nukem Forever?

The race to the consumer roll out is on!

Re:which will roll out first? (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064032)

IPv6 or Duke Nukem Forever?

I've got IPv6 running on my Mac right now. OTOH, I looked on the App Store, and didn't see Duke Nukem Forever available for download. :^(

Re:which will roll out first? (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064094)

Current operating systems support IPv6, but consumer grade routers and a few ISP's havent jumped on the bandwagon yet

Re:which will roll out first? (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064524)

Current operating systems support IPv6, but consumer grade routers and a few ISP's havent jumped on the bandwagon yet

All very true, but unlike DNF, the code for IPv6 definitely exists and definitely works. It's just (haha!) a matter of actually installing it in the places it needs to be installed.

Ok...this really sucks! (2)

NoExQQ (1961082) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063896)

Damn it! I just figured out how to subnet without a calculator and now this!!

Why can't we go after legacy space? (1)

Artifex (18308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063898)

I can't undertand why we can't ask legacy holders to give some accounting for their space usage. Take the US Postal Service, for example. Give each of the estimated 43,000 ZIP codes out there its own IP address, and that won't even fill a /16. And yet they have 56/8? Surely they don't need that much. Is there language in these old distributions that prevents the possibility of them being audited and revoked? And even if we don't go after mismanaged /8 space, registries certainly have an obligation to go after "portable space" assigned to companies which are now defunct or whose IP space has otherwise gone unused and even unannounced for a significant period of time.

Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063956)

For every /8 you manage to claw back (incurring ridiculous costs to the holders of it, meaning it won't happen, they'd sooner take IANA/ARIN/etc. to court and drag it out I suspect) you gain.. wait for it... a total of 1 month. It's just not worth it. And then what.. start clawing back class B's? Better to move to IPv6 and just fix it for once and all. Plus we still have the 6to4, 4to6 and whatnot to deal with for a few decades.

Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? (3, Insightful)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063968)

We can ask them to do that. In fact some organisations that initially had very large (/8) allocations have already given some of their pool back. However, the growth of the internet is consuming a /8 worth of IPs every 4-6 weeks, at present. So even if all organisations with a /8 gave it back, it'd give us maybe a year's extra time, if that.

240/4 subnets (2)

dhammabum (190105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063900)

I note that IANA has classified 240/8 - 255/8 (well 254/8 really - 255 is for broadcasts) as reserved for future use. Is not the future now?

Re:240/4 subnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35063928)

255/8 is not for broadcasts. Not everything is a class C, 255 is not a "magic number". Please read an elementary guide to IP subnetting.

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064412)

Uhhh... we dont use Class C or any "Class" blocks at all anymore. Try /24 or some other equivalent notation.

Re:240/4 subnets (4, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063930)

There is a lot of legacy IPv4 software in networking components will not route packets going to those addresses, since they were designated as future use a long time ago.

Since that software would have to be updated, it might as well just be updated to IPv6.

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064008)

Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?

The firmware developers should have expected the "future" would come eventually right?

Re:240/4 subnets (1, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064052)

Sure, and it was also stupid to only use 32 bits for the address.

A lot of dumb decisions were made in the early days of the internet when they didn't know how far reaching those decisions would turn out to be or the problems they would eventually cause.

Re:240/4 subnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064220)

Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?

Yes, extremely.

Sure, and it was also stupid to only use 32 bits for the address.

That's not even the same thing.

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064258)

A lot of dumb decisions were made in the early days of the internet when they didn't know how far reaching those decisions would turn out to be or the problems they would eventually cause.

Oddly, I was thinking how the same applies to the US Constitution.

Which was implemented just a few years after the Articles of Confederation.

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064456)

Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?

The firmware developers should have expected the "future" would come eventually right?

How should developers have designed the use of that address space? Unicast? Multicast? Anycast? Some-as-yet-unknown-cast? Kind of hard to program that in and for what benefit? Zero return really and one might argue for a net loss as some vendors may have designed its use one way and others may have done something altogether different and incompatible with the first. Then what? Not it's totally screwed up. Not to mention if it's not used but enabled for years and years I bet there would be bugs galore since it would be basically never used by any sizable amount of people. This would only marginally extend the exhaustion time in any case. Would have been better to go with IPv6 as soon as it became official.

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064050)

I fail to see how some users not being able to reach them on v4 due to outdated routers is worse than far more users not being able to reach them because they have only a v6 address. Clearly v6 support to the end node is still very limited. Make the previously reserved v4 addresses available.

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064128)

Well for one, support would be a nightmare.

With a v6 address, you can gauge connectivity with a simple question, does your software/hardware support IPv6?

With a semi-reachable v4 address, it would be "does your hardware AND any routers or gateway servers in between your box and the intended destination show up on this huge list of incompatible hardware?".

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064284)

If their HW/SW (and their ISP, etc.) supports v6, they'll just connect using v6. However, if their HW/SW doesn't support v6, and there is a formerly reserved v4 address, they can at least attempt the connection (i.e. no v6, potential v4 connection). Without that, they can't get to the destination until they upgrade their HW/SW and verify their ISP provides v6 connectivity (i.e. no v6, no connection)

Support is no harder because you try v6 first. If that fails, they try v4 knowing that some devices won't be able to connect. If the users wants to go through the process of checking a "huge list of incompatible equipment", they can, if not, well, they're no worse off than they will be by assigning v6 addresses after the current v4s run out.

Re:240/4 subnets (2)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064360)

Support is no harder because you try v6 first.

But it will be. Try explaining to your customers why some people have a fully routable v4 assignment, but yours is hopelessly crippled and will only enjoy spotty connectivity. There isn't enough information about IPv6 in the general marketplace already, there is virtually none about this alternate range of v4 addresses that could potentially work for some people but not others.

Besides, any of those IPv4 bandaid type solutions just delay the impetus to move to IPv6. If you are going to make people check and patch their equipment to support future use addresses, you are going to take away resources that could be focused on moving to v6.

Dual stack will allow people to connect to those who can only get a new v6 address (i.e. a v4 peer will be able to connect to a v6 socket). That is a better solution than making the IPv4 situation even more broken than it already is.

Re:240/4 subnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064164)

Most OSes will drop packets from these reserved ranges. So yes, you fail to see how patching ALL the infrastructure in an obsolete protocol is somewhat more difficult than simply turning on IPv6 - something that is already supported by most OSes.

Re:240/4 subnets (3, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35063946)

Except that a good deal of devices refuse to route anything to such addresses, making them effectively useless. Having to reflash every router (including "consumer" ones) and fix every broken config would be harder than just migrating to IPv6. Strictly speaking, easier to amend but with breakages harder to spot.

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064040)

Is not the future now?

No. Not ever. By definition.

Buy an IPv6 router. Or a time machine. Or an IPv6 time machine.

Re:240/4 subnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064378)

Or an IPv6 time machine.

Because 128 bits "outta be enough for any" era! :)

Re:240/4 subnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064066)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02

Re:240/4 subnets (1)

gargleblast (683147) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064092)

That would buy us 1 or 2 years. The future is a bit longer than that.

They should be able to get some from Egypt (0)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064014)

Why not pull a few spare addresses from Egypt? They don't appear to be using them.

So when is Randall Munroe.. (1)

Chuq (8564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064044)

Going to update http://xkcd.com/195/ [xkcd.com] ?

Repeat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064184)

This is a repeat from the last ten years, every year.

More will be allocated from some unallocated/untouched block, we'll forget about it for a while, and panic next year when this shitstorm starts again.

Just push v6 already, for fuck's sake, I'm sick of this panicky shit.

An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... (5, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064278)

"A strong CIDR please, I'm exhausted"

Re:An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064434)

A good laugh... :)
Mod parent up, please!
10 years ago, this would already be up thru the clouds. What's happened?!

Re:An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064452)

Why only mod this a 2?!?!?!??? Should be a 5 this is fracken brilliant! :)

I just talked to my ISP about this... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064502)

... and they told me, quite plainly, that they have absolutely no intention to start deploying IPv6 address blocks to customers until they run completely out of IPv4 addresses.

I was floored. "Until"??? That's like not bothering to buy toilet paper until you need to use the restroom *after* you've already run out.

Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... (1)

WeatherGod (1726770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064550)

Which ISP please so I know who to avoid?

Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064582)

Shaw

I dont get why.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35064506)

Hardware manufacturers start pushing IPV6 as a feature, touting "is YOUR isp ready for the new internet? call them today and let them know you are!"

within a year or so, more ISPs would become ipv6 ready

Not to mention it doesnt have to be a complete switchover, the internet can be mixed for a while.

Then again, it's taking people forever to switch to 64 bit. consumer 64 bit computers have been around for close to a decade, yet only now are we seeing the jump to 64 bit due to the need for more ram.

The problem is, the people who are pushing for ipv6 are pushing for an all or nothing approach, either everyone switches over or get left in the dust.

Mobile networks should push for it first, seeing as they have the best market to do it in, seeing as people keep cell phones for about 2 years, start making it mandatory for new devices to be ipv6 compliant (anything android should be) and start rolling out ipv6 addresses, with the ability to still see ipv4 content.

Seriously, the ISPs need a boot in the ass and need to realize that they have to spend some money on infrastructure rather than polish a turd, and that spending millions and even billions on litigation, strongarming, and lobbying could be better spent on improving their services instead of being greedy sociopaths.

At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... (1)

jk379 (734476) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064546)

UBM just gave back the 45.0.0.0/8 block . It's not a small block and it's available, only 256 of these blocks exists and once you pull out the 0.0.0.0, 127.0.0.0/8, 255.255.255.255 and multi-cast blocks this return counts. What other blocks have been returned and aren't counted as free?

Edited: whois 45.0.0.1
NetRange: 45.0.0.0 - 45.1.255.255
CIDR: 45.0.0.0/15
NetName: SHOWNET
NetHandle: NET-45-0-0-0-1
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS.INTEROP.NET
RegDate: 1991-09-09
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-45-0-0-0-1 [arin.net]
OrgName: Interop Show Network

Re:At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064610)

That will give us an extra 4-6 weeks, at current rates of IPv4 growth. So handy, but by no means life-saving.

O M G (-1, Offtopic)

lullabud (679893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35064598)

How many times do we have to read this fucking headline?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...