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!

Asia Runs Out of IPv4 Addresses

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the perhaps-you'd-like-to-try-the-duck dept.

The Internet 321

ZerXes writes "It seems that APNIC has just released the last block of IPv4 addresses and are now completely out, a lot faster then expected. Even though APNIC received 3 /8 blocks in February the high growth of mobile devices made the addresses run out even before the summer. 'From this day onwards, IPv6 is mandatory for building new Internet networks and services,' says APNIC Director General Paul Wilson."

cancel ×

321 comments

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

then != than (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823168)

jeasus!

fuckoff twit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823330)

fuckoff

Re:then != than (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823420)

They should pick up a srash 8 to hold them over.

Re:then != than (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823910)

jesus != jeasus. If your going to fix grammar then at least learn to spell. Idiot.

Re:then != than (1, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824450)

your != you're

Re:then != than (-1, Offtopic)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824540)

-- != ...

So which is which? (1, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823176)

"It seems that APNIC has just released the last block of IPv4 addresses and are now completely out, a lot faster then expected.

The headline says something to the effect that IP addresses are out yet the quoted line has the word 'seems', casting doubt as to whether the addresses are out for sure. What's really going on?

Re:So which is which? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823300)

Durr... Why not read the article? ZerXes said 'seems', the original article is much more definite. No - I'm not going to quote from it. Go and read it.

Re:So which is which? (5, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823304)

APNIC is NOT out of IPv4 addresses. They are down to their last /8 - the one they got as one of the final five /8s being allocated to each of the RIRs. This puts them in the third and final stage of their IPv4 exhaustion plan, whereby they will only allocate a maximum of a single /22 to each network operator which is supposed to be used primarily to enable a transistion to IPv6 by supporting IPv4 to IPv6 gateways and hosts that just have to be on a native IPv4 address.

More information directly from APNIC here. [apnic.net]

Re:So which is which? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823406)

A /22 is pretty much nothing, so what you're saying is that an ISP looking for addresses can get pretty much nothing from APNIC. Thus, they're basically out.

Re:So which is which? (1)

Richard Dick Head (803293) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823534)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those addresses were snuck off into corporate-land anyway, due to upcoming massive value increases.

The same situation happened in the United States when the phone service ran out of 1-800 toll-free business numbers. Nobody wanted the new 1-888 business numbers because they make you look like a fly-by-night, or scam operation. Not classy at all. Even today, over a decade after the fact, you'll notice that sales lines still tend to be given the preferred 1-800 slot, and the non-front-line items like technical support are given the black sheep format.

Its gonna be even worse since with IPV6 you're definitely going to lose customers in legacy land. Mark my words, the value of these spots will increase drastically in the coming months.

Re:So which is which? (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824000)

Since when exactly do we have to actually buy IPs from auction sites ? This isn't the way it works dude. APNIC is an association, which you buy a yearly subscription, and with the top boss being elected (elections just happened in fact). You have to show that you really use the IPs you need, and there's no such thing as monetizing the address space.

Re:So which is which? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823828)

It's a well known fact that asians only cheat, lie, and steal.

And why would we care? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823178)

Seriously, why is this news?

NAT to the rescue (0, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823198)

Network Address Translation [wikipedia.org] could provide some relief I think...no?

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823306)

Yeah, let's transform internet to a television. Yay.

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

geekpowa (916089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823798)

Why not? This is how the overwhelming majority of people interface with the internet anyway: content consumption. ipv6; by virtue of the reality of the fact we are not running it yet, appears to be a project failure in terms of it's stated goal to supercede ipv4. We could press ahead with it, or consider alternatives such as NAT.

Most folk I know who need an IP address fall into one of two categories:

  • People who p2p fileshare. (Services like Skype and VOIP solve issue of NAT by having peer clients send comms via a intermediate node server)
  • People who run webservers. I know hardly anyone who does this from their bedroom these days. Thanks to VPS, Amazon/Rackspace etc. Cost is next to nothing

The precise problem many folk here have with going to NAT I fail to fully grok. It will not limit how you can use the Internet; but it will modify the way certain types of problems are solved. Big deal; this is network protocol stuff, and working around problems (such as fact that TCP/IP is unicast, or HTTP is client/server send/receive) is par for the course. Maybe some people like their Internet 'pure' or something; me I try to take a more pragmatic approach. ipv6 transition I fear is going to be massively disruptive over a period of at least 2 years and it is going to cost us all alot of money. Maybe Utopia indeed awaits us on the the otherside, but having been promised Utopia many times on many different disruptive technology transition projects; I can't help but feel a little cynical

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824344)

ipv6 transition I fear is going to be massively disruptive over a period of at least 2 years and it is going to cost us all alot of money

And NATing everything is not going to be disruptive and cost a lot of money?

Large scale NAT is a stopgap measure. It will simply delay exhaustion a few more years, maybe a decade. It is not a viable long term solution. Then once we're totally out of IPv4 space, we'll need to implement IPv6 or something similar anyway.

NAT or no NAT, IPv4 is no longer viable for widespread use.

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

geekpowa (916089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824448)

And NATing everything is not going to be disruptive and cost a lot of money?

NAT is already here and in widespread use in every small office and multi device household; whereas ipv6 is not. To insist some sort of cost equivalence between the two projects; where option one involves hacking an existing framework to extend the network's reach, vs swapping in a brand new network on a global scale; is just staggeringly irrational. By all means, have your ipv6 if it is so precious to you, but when you break, in probability, the internet during the transition stage, which our civilization has now become heavily coupled to; be prepared to answer your critics.

NAT or no NAT, IPv4 is no longer viable for widespread use.

And so say the religious zealots. In all probability your ipv6 utopia will arrive; and in all probability, the disruption this transition I suspect will cause, will impact the viability and usefulness of the Internet for a number of years and it will become regular topic of discussion amongst general population and media.

Re:NAT to the rescue (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823332)

Why? I already have an inet6 address. Anyone who bought hardware that doesn't do ipv6 in the past two years must not be a real geek.

Re:NAT to the rescue (2)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823458)

Neither my ISP nor my tomato routers support in6 :(
(dd had issues and openwrt was a PITA to set up)

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823542)

http://tomatousb.org/

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823814)

IPv6 is only in the 8MB images. I have 2 WRT54GLs, you insensitive clod!

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824032)

I bought a cheapo asus wireless router for about $30 on amazon a year ago (sorry, don't remember the model number and I'm not home right now). It does ipv6 just fine. I actually bought it to put the smaller dd-wrt image on, and that's what I did as soon as it arrived, but it seems the dd-wrt firmware makes the router's CPU run too hot and my connection would become unreliable. But with the stock firmware it does a fine job for a basic home router. I was tempted to keep dd-wrt and mod the thing for better cooling, but then I got lazy and settled for "good enough".

Re:NAT to the rescue (5, Funny)

fudoniten (918077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823396)

Whoops, kid, it looks like you're growing up! You're getting too big for your clothes. Don't worry, though, it's nothing a little surgery can't fix.

Re:NAT to the rescue (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823522)

And here I was, going to compare it to putting a band-aid over a bullet wound.

Re:NAT to the rescue... NOT (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823630)

"""Network Address Translation [wikipedia.org] could provide some relief I think...no?"""

No.

BACKGROUND:

NAT, in the way which can be used by ISPs to reduce the need for IP addresses, works by mapping multiple internal IP addresses to a external one (or groups of external ones). So say you have a one thousand computers you need to keep online and you have only 100 addresses. NAT will allow you to logically map those 100 addresses to the one thousand computers.

NAT is able to do this by connection tracking. The router keeps in memory what connections were created with what external IP address and then routes the data from the reply back to the original host. So say my browser opens up a socket on 192.168.1.129:59343 and connects to Google on "www.google.com:80". The NAT router opens up a connection on 208.32.20.1:78190, connects to 'www.google.com:80'. When the machine listening on 'www.google.com:80' sends information back to 208.32.20.1:78190. Any data received on 208.32.20.1:78190 then automatically gets forwarded to 192.168.1.129:59343, which then is received by my browser.

WHY NAT IS FULL OF FAIL:

The reason that NAT + IPv4 is not a substitute for IPv6 is because the number of sockets that a router can open and manage is less then 16bits. That is the socket numbering scheme is 16bit scheme, of which a substantial number of sockets are reserved for specific protocols. That is less then 60,000 possible connections can be made by a router with a single public IP address.

Each new connection made by a machine behind a new router requires a new socket established. Just by having 3 tabs on my browser right now I am using roughly 20 connections. Each connection is going to a ad provider, google, different slashdot.org servers, etc etc.

Say that a internet user is using about 50 active connections at any one time then that means that 1 public address can only support about 1200 concurrent users. But it will break down long before that. People using bittorrent may use 300 TCP connections, which means that you can only support a 100-200 users.

The other aspect of this is that there is not enough IPv4 addresses for internet routers. That is a new ISP will run out of IP addresses long before they are even finish building their infrastructure!!! There wouldn't be enough addresses to even setup NAT routers!

This is taken care of by 'Carrier Grade NAT'. Which is you use NAT firewalls for your NAT firewall.

So....
Internet ----> NAT firewall -----(TCP tunnelled over TCP) ----> NAT firewall ----> Your home NAT router ----> Your PC.

Ever wonder why your bittorrent connections turn to shit!?

For Asia users this is already not good enough. They have RUN OUT. They cannot use NAT to extend it any further... they are over and done with.

Why not just make sockets 32bit or 64bit? Because that's retarded when you have IPv6, that's why.

I am currently running a IPv6 /32 network for my PERSONAL HOME NETWORK. All these are real, public, IP addresses.
79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 addresses and 4,294,967,296 sub networks.

A subnet for IPv6 is a /64 network. 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses in a /64 subnet.

When IPv6 rolls around most people will end up getting a /48 network address. This is _only_ 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 addresses and 65,536 networks.

There are 281,474,976,710,656 /48 network addresses in total to give away. We will now only have to worry about IP address exhaustion when the human race becomes interstellar.

So, yeah, IPv4 luddites with their NAT savior complexes can go screw themselves. I want a efficient, open, and secure internet. NAT precludes this.

Re:NAT to the rescue... NOT (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824484)

That is less then 60,000 possible connections can be made by a router with a single public IP address.

That depends on how clever the NAT is. Technically each server you talk to doesn't know what ports you are using to talk to each other servers. So there is nothing stopping a nat using an internet side port to talk to multiple servers at the same time. Such a scheme will completely any protocol that tries to do "nat traversal" but it should keep the basics working at very high user:IP ratios.

Still I would expect IPv6 to seep in if only to try and reduce the load on the big nats.

Re:NAT to the rescue... NOT (1)

ekhben (628371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824608)

The other big issue with NATs is traversal. You can't run bittorrent at all unless most hosts on the internet can be directly reached; it relies on peers being directly addressable.

When the NAT is on your home gateway, you (or your software) can instruct it to forward certain ports to certain hosts inside the NAT. When the NAT is run by the ISP, shared by hundreds of users, you can't do that - contention for the well known ports makes it impossible.

But clever people have realised that a NAT will often redirect all connections on a particular port back to you if you open up just one connection on that port. So if you can find a willing host to report back what port you've just connected from, you can tell others to use that.

Which breaks if you try to be clever about using the full (host, port, port, host) tuple to identify each connection.

You also have a scalability issue if you try to shove thousands of users onto a single address; storing and searching the state table for hundreds of thousands of mappings requires hardware that hasn't been built yet.

Re:NAT to the rescue... NOT (1)

p.rican (643452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824514)

Brilliant explanation. Thank you for taking the time to write that up.

India: The NAT Nation Example (1)

cmholm (69081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824096)

I'm a bit surprised that the parent was modded off topic. The fact is that when they were first passing out brains IP blocks 'way back when, most of Asia weren't players in the internet game. I recall a briefing from the beginning of the century stating that most of India was running behind a massive NAT gateway.... and thus suggesting that most Asian nations would be moving to ipv6 earlier than the OECD out of necessity.

So, yeah, APNIC is likely very motivated to go ipv6. But, don't discount the allure of the cheap fix.

Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (3, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823206)

This might have a really obvious answer, but is there any reason why mobiles necessarily need an IPv4 address? Surely they could get away with IPv6 and a bit of tunnelling. Hell, in the UK most mobiles share an IP anyway.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (5, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823240)

Yeah, giving mobile phones IPv6 addresses makes a lot of sense. A 'no brainer', maybe. All new 'embedded' type consumer devices should be IPv6 only, IMO. It completely avoids most of the problems associated with IPv6 on so-called legacy IPv4 networks:

* there are no legacy applications
* the likelihood of connecting, directly, with anything on IPv4 that does not support IPv6 is drastically lowered
* there is little to no legacy hardware to support.

Of course, this would require the handsets and other 'embedded' devices to actually support IPv6. I don't know if that's the case, yet.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823358)

the likelihood of connecting, directly, with anything on IPv4 that does not support IPv6 is drastically lowered

I presume you mean that *provided* that the carrier does NAT64+DNS64 a mobile phone will be ok, not that a phone never needs to talk an IPv4 only server. With that clarification in place, I'd concur.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (4, Insightful)

doublebackslash (702979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823498)

Sweet! You mean to say that all websites and application specific servers for mobile phones have been migrated to ipv6! Awesome!

Oh wait... hold on a second... Almost the entirety of the English speaking Internet still isn't on ipv6?

Whats that you say? Not even friggin' slashdot?

I wonder if THAT is why.

Now having said that: Every computer I'm an admin for is 100% ipv6 compatible and all of my servers have AAAA dns records alongside their A records. I've even got a nice little OSPFv3 infrastructure running. It isn't friggin rocket surgery, but everyone is dragging their ass on the ground like the problem will become someone else's, when in reality it will shortly become everyone's. All of my efforts are in vain so long as there is a dearth of IPv6 accessible content.

By the by, are you running IPv6?

Lastly: For everyone who says that it is "hard" for large network to migrate, and they they have to re-learn everything yadda yadda:

IPv6 is easier to work with on a large scale thanks to the simplified routing tables that it affords as well as the shotgun approach to address assignment. Every single link is a /64 at minimum (and maximum, given the number addresses in a /64) and the blocks can be handed out ham-fistedly because of the mind boggling size of the space. If they have hardware that does not support ipv6 then they should blame themselves. Large network operators have NO EXCUSE. They knew this was coming and their profit margins are wide enough that they could have thrown money at it.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (1)

DarkJC (810888) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824478)

They knew this was coming and their profit margins are wide enough that they could have thrown money at it.

That just won't do in todays "more profit every quarter" market. Won't somebody think of the shareholders!

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824490)

I had a lot of trouble with support to relaying using statefull DHCP servers which were required by the company I worked for. If all the important manufacturers are supporting this, then it shouldn't be a problem. Unluckily, I know at least that Juniper wasn't supporting this not too long ago, and I'm not sure Cisco. So it may not be a pain for infrastructure (ISP) or small companies that don't mind handling IPs using the stateless algorithm. But for some reason, some companies don't want to use that.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (1)

doublebackslash (702979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824666)

Not that I doubt that management is intransigent for reasons that they hold dear BUT... what does the stateful DHCP service provide them in the IPv6 context? What excuse are they pulling out to "require" this. I'm interested in knowing.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823944)

Linux has supported IPv6 since about 1997, so if Android has v6 compatibility problems it's entirely Google's fault. I have no idea whether Darwin (iOS) or QNX (new Blackberry crap) support it. I would bet money that the WinCE line (Windows Mobile, WinPhone 7, etc.) don't support IPv6.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (1, Insightful)

crow (16139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823264)

I'm very glad that my phone has a real IP address, so I can ssh into it. Thanks, Sprint.

That said, I wouldn't mind if it were IPv6, but I would be annoyed if it were through a NAT.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823480)

If it was IPv6 it would not be through NAT.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (2)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823758)

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Once Sprint runs out of address space they will HAVE to start putting users on NAT to service them. They will likely start putting new accounts behind NAT, leaving old accounts "grandfathered in". Users who NEED a real address (for NAT or certain services that need it) will likely have to sign up with an "enterprise" plan or something similar to get one.

That is what AT&T does; that's the difference between the "regular" and "enterprise" data plans. Regular = behind a NAT, enterprise = real IP. I think the cost difference between them is $20 a month.

Well yes and no (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823410)

So no they don't need their own public IPv4 address and indeed I've never seen one that has one. However you do need IPv4 addresses to access stuff on the Internet. Regardless of if you do IPv4 NAT or if you do IPv6 with gateways to v4, you need the IPv4 addresses.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823686)

I was just discussing with some folks from Sprint yesterday, according to them there no current mobile devices that can support anything except IPv4. They and other carriers are looking at implementing IPv6 at the carrier and providing the mobiles with private addresses instead. This would prolong the lives of the mobiles and extend the time before everything has to go to v6.

Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? (1)

Gerald (9696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823752)

T-Mobile and Verizon are way ahead of you [psu.edu] .

Dual Stacks..... forever... (1, Flamebait)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823216)

IPv4 addresses may be running out, but we can all look forward to supporting them forever in a second stack, running parallel to our IPv6 software, now and forever, for the rest of eternity, Amen.

Unless the entire world magically switches over to IPv6 all at once like the designers planned for. Hasn't happened yet though.

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823308)

Google, apple, microsoft could do it: announce their website won't accept ipv4 connections after date xx/xx/202X.

I'm pretty sure everyone would switch before the fatidic date but I'm also sure they'd never take the risk. They wouldn't be able to reach such an agreement anyway.

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (2)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823354)

IPv4 addresses may be running out, but we can all look forward to supporting them forever in a second stack, running parallel to our IPv6 software, now and forever, for the rest of eternity, Amen.

Like how browsers all still having to cope with both Gopher and HTTP? Like Gopher, IPv4 will fade out, slowly. At some point, new networks will see no need to have an IPv4 address just for the tiny minority of users who would need it.

I know the problem is of a much greater magnitude, but it still doesn't require an instantaneous switchover.

(Yes, I know Firefox only just dropped Gopher support.)

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (3, Insightful)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823524)

Gopher is not a good example. When a site already has an IPv4 address it has no incentive to offer it over IPv6 too, since v6 offers no technological benefit to the webhost. Conversely, a site that is only on IPv6 is not going to get any hits, so anyone that wants traffic needs an IPv4 address anyway. IPv4 is simply not going to go away because the people without an address are kicking up a fuss. I would guess that those people will be stuck in their own IPv6 world, while all the content worth viewing would still be on IPv4.

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (2)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824014)

If a website has an IPv4 address, it may want to maintain that. If it doesn't, and the IPv4 addresses have dried up, it may not be possible to get one (or at least, it may be royally expensive). Similarly, tunneling from IPv6 to IPv4 is still very imperfect, meaning that once new devices and connections are on IPv6, your incentive to serve IPv6 is to not tick off your new users (which are usually the most profitable).

I suspect we will hit a tipping point, where new devices and connections happen via IPv6, so content providers all dual-stack. IPv4 users will find themselves tunneling through an IPv6 world. Electronics have a 5 year lifespan anyway, so within half a decade IPv4 will have faded.

Really, it all depends on the pain. When does IPv4 not just run out, but get painfully expensive to acquire?

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (2)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824238)

When does IPv4 not just run out, but get painfully expensive to acquire?

Indeed, at least in the west most home lusers still have public V4 IPs. I would expect ISPs to gradually reclaim those IPs for more lucrative customers and so it will be a while (possiblly a decade) before the shortage really bites on western ISPs.

It is over in the east that things are REALLY going to get hairy with so many new users coming online that I would expect IP values to dramatically rise. ISP level nat will help to an extent but there are limits on the ratios that can practially be used. I would expect them to try importing IPs but I don't know whether the IANA and the RIRs will let them get away with it.

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35824558)

Indeed, at least in the west most home lusers still have public V4 IPs.

Blow me douche. If it wasn't for the west you wouldn't have an internet to troll on.

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823372)

Wasn't the whole point of IPv6 being essentially independent of IPv4 so that you COULD run dual stacks? Because it would be completely un-reasonable to be able to cut-over from one addressing protocol to another world wide in any reasonable fashion? So ... yes, dual stacks for the next 20 years on main-stream devices, maybe 70-80 years for niche needs sounds reasonable to me.

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823380)

This will happen one day: when the major nodes/exchanges will no longer route IPv4 traffic. Let's call this day flag day [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823454)

I can't see the world magically switching over to anything voluntarily.

Sounds like ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823232)

"Hello! PLEASE READ THIS!!!

Hey it is Andy and john the directors of MSN [...] we only have 578 names left [...]"

Forward thinking at its best (2)

guard952 (768434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823238)

At least now IPv6 is mandatory!

Wouldn't it have been better to make it mandatory years ago?

Re:Forward thinking at its best (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823274)

Nah. ipv4 is enough for anybody. I mean how can we possibly ever run out? There's plenty of addresses....

Ah fuck.

Re:Forward thinking at its best (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823818)

Also, eat your vegetables kid. Your colon will thank you when you're 60.

Re:Forward thinking at its best (2)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824578)

just like the metric system

geographic distribution (1, Interesting)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823336)

A glance at the master IANA table here [iana.org] seems to say that the USA got the majority of ipv4 addresses, even though today the majority of devices is elsewhere.

Re:geographic distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823402)

Good for us, bad for them.

I write an end-user application that uses IP as a "side note" essentially. It is decidedly IPv4 now and frankly I don't see it being anything else in any foreseeable future.
Even if I bothered to accept different address types and do appropriate magic to create the right kind of a socket - it would be absolutely impossible to explain this to majority of our users, who are well conditioned to use dotted quad notation. When the environment conditions them otherwise - I'll change the product.

Re:geographic distribution (2)

yuriks (1089091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823544)

Please fall over and die. You are the kind of 'engineer' that holds back all of humanity. There's no reason to not implement IPv6, and 'user unfriendly' may be the very worst excuse, since implementing IPv6 doesn't mean you can support IPv4 too.

Re:geographic distribution (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823564)

:) Thank you, but I'll do what my users want me to do :) Indoctrination by engineering or "religious adherence" to whatever principle is not my thing.

That and I actively dislike IPv6 :) So - I'll do everything in my power to slow down its distribution and acceptance.

That, however, is more of a bonus. If users demand it - I'll most definitely do whatever I can to make them happy.

Re:geographic distribution (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823608)

Please fall over and die. You are the kind of 'engineer' that holds back all of humanity. There's no reason to not implement IPv6, and 'user unfriendly' may be the very worst excuse, since implementing IPv6 doesn't mean you can support IPv4 too.

Exactly! IPv6 support should "just work" and be transparent to the user.

Re:geographic distribution (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823676)

:) How would that happen if user has to enter the actual IP address? :)
Or do you suggest that all our users already have DNS services enabled for their local networks and just don't know about it?

You sound like a PHB :) You definitely do not sound like someone that ever tried to actually implement anything related to IPv6 :)

Re:geographic distribution (2)

yuriks (1089091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823710)

If the user has to enter an IP address they will simply enter their quad notated IPv4 address like they always did. In case they are interfacing with an IPv6 network, well, not supporting IPv6 at all won't make that any easier now, will it? "You sound like a clueless :)"

Re:geographic distribution (1)

sirsnork (530512) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824252)

Users very rarely have to enter IP addresses, and if they do, then either DNS or a Bonjour like service can easily be used instead.

Re:geographic distribution (3, Insightful)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823856)

Yeah, that's what tends to happen when you get there first. It's not like they were going to reserve addresses on a per-capita basis.

Re:geographic distribution (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824536)

^get there first^own ICANN and enough critical infrastructure to demand whatever the hell they like, no questions asked, regardless of any actual needs

Re:geographic distribution (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823940)

Looking at that table, I can't help thinking that the /4 block reserved for "Future use" might come in handy about now. I know it will only last a few months, and there are probably some TCP/IP stacks around that will reject those reserved addresses, but if the future is ever going to come, it needs to come now.

Then (5, Insightful)

fswine (1169091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823352)

GRAMMAR NAZI ALERT!

"a lot faster then expected"

Do people know the difference between then and than anymore?

Inappropriate use of your/you're there/their/they're then/than drives me nuts.

ZerXes, go back to digg.

Re:Then (1)

cafelatte (99544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823462)

I hate in the Twilight saga movie, Jacob Black says "I could care less what you think" instead of "I couldn't care less what you think" It's so lame for that to happen in a big blockbuster movie.

Re:Then (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823510)

Well, I know the difference between 'then' and 'that'. But sometimes, you type one instead of the other one by mistake and you do not spot the mistake when you read it.

I just received some comments on a 40 pages document I wrote and there are a lot of such mistake. I know they were mistakes but when you read a document so many times you no longer see typos.

Of course, it's a different story if the same mistake is repeated hundreds of times per page. But it isn't the case here.

Re:Then (1)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824044)

a lot of such mistake

You just proved your own point! (Or, to get into the spirit of this thread: You just proved you're own point!)

what about the map? (2)

Life2Death (801594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823392)

http://xkcd.com/195/ [xkcd.com]

Ask Ford for some?

Re:what about the map? (2)

Phs2501 (559902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823504)

At the IPv4 burn rate of the last month, Ford's space would last only another 10 days. IPv4's done; stick a fork in it and start moving on.

Re:what about the map? (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823602)

Doesn't work that way. IP numbers are not UUIDs. They have to be hierarchical to keep the routing tables from becoming unmanageable. You can't just hand them out randomly.

Re:what about the map? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824306)

IPs aren't UUIDs as such but they aren't really that heirechical either. They are handed out by the RIRs in various size blocks and each of those blocks (and sometimes even sub-blocks of it) ends up in the global routing table. Very small providers will take a portion of one of their providers blocks but most bigger organisations will have their own block(s).

Running out of space in routing tables is a potential issue but at least so far the vendors have been able to keep up with routing table growth.

Disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823434)

There will be cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria

You know what they say... (2)

yuriks (1089091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823502)

4,294,967,296 ought to be enough for anybody.

I won't ever say that unless it involves physical things in numbers greater than the number of atoms in the universe. And damn, if we start making memory out of quarks I'll even be wrong there too...

Re:You know what they say... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823636)

18,446,744,073,709,551,616 really ought to be enough for anyone.

Re:You know what they say... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823816)

Good thing we have 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 then, just in case we discover a few more universes...

Told you so. (0)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823530)

n/t

NAT (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823680)

I'm being serious here with this question: Why do people feel that EVERY new device needs a public address? 99.9% of mobile devices would be quite happy behind NAT. And, the vast majority of 'home' PC's would work behind NAT. Most corporate LANs are also sitting safely behind them.

Sure there are some exceptions, but most people really don't need unrestricted incoming connections.

Is wider use of NAT the 'answer'? Perhaps not, but it would extend use of v4 for decades..

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823774)

NAT doesn't make anything safe.

Re:NAT (0)

ugen (93902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823778)

Mod parent up.

NAT is the answer because that's what is being used. Most devices do not need universal identifier. My toaster does not have an individual phone number and you can't send it "snail mail" other than sending it to my home address "attn. Mr. Toaster". Neither should another device simply because it has more complicated electronic circuitry.

More importantly, over the last 20-30 years Internet as a whole took up and implemented on the wide scale dozens (or hundreds) of standards for everything from protocol handling to data visualization. Each standard was so accepted because it solved a real problem and was generally better at it than others (or so thought its users). NAT was one of those standards, yet IPv6 was not. Even now, as IPv4 addresses are running out - no one except religious adherents or government officials seems to be in a rush to go to IPv6. I think this should give everyone a good clue as to the pedigree and usefulness of that protocol.

IPv6 is poorly designed "by committee", badly defined and while it purports to solve issues of address shortage, it does so in ham-fisted manner that's not what users want to see. It's bad solution and as long as it remains a bad solution - its acceptance will be slow and painful.

Re:NAT (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824650)

Address shortages are a very, very, very tiny, miniscule fraction of IPv6. If IPv6 was about address shortages, the IPng working group would have adopted TUBA.

You seem unwilling to even recognize any of the other features of IPv6:

  • Built-in security
    Built-in device mobility
  • Built-in network mobility
  • Built-in multimedia support
  • Extensible headers for dynamic protocol upgrades
  • Auto-configuration
  • Reduced latency
  • Improved router reliability (partly due to simpler routing protocols)
  • Native multicasting
  • Native anycasting
  • Superior QoS support

Don't even think of coming back with "but nobody uses these" - nobody was driving until the car was adopted either. Things have a habit of not being used when they're not available. When they are available, they are used. It's as simple as that.

Re:NAT (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823806)

The vast majority of home PCs *are* behind a NAT. What the vast majority of home PCs are not going to work behind properly is a double NAT, and a trend towards that will fundamentally break the future development of a whole host of user-centric applications. You can more or less kiss the idea of peer-to-peer anything goodbye.

Re:NAT (4, Insightful)

lanner (107308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823870)

You must be one of those people who wants the Internet to be like TV -- for "consumers" and "viewers" only.

For people, like me, who have to actually manage networks, NAT is one of the worst things that happened in networking that we still have to deal with. You end up with two sets of DNS for each company, public and private IP networks to manage, firewalls and routers doing additional processing that is wasting CPU and memory.

NAT also severely restricts the capabilities of what are possible on the Internet. It firmly gives control to those with public addresses (big companies) and takes it away from individual users.

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823926)

Bullshit.

I actually enable individual users to share their data, creating crowd-sourced systems.

1. Individual users have and will continue to have real IP addresses. Their toasters and refrigerators do not. Single IP address is sufficient for peer to peer communication, as countless products (that actually work) had shown.

2. Content can/is/should be hosted not at the same location where the user is. There are hosting services for that. They are available to all and, so long as free market exists - will be available to all. They are now - not a single person has been prevented from making his/her content available to others because of IP address unavailability. (In fact, a single IP address is sufficient to host 1000s of sites/services etc).

This argument is a total crap and anyone making an argument like that is politically motivated asshole (yes, you)

Re:NAT (2)

bbn (172659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823896)

99.9% of mobile devices would be quite happy behind NAT.

No. Being behind NAT means the mobile device has to pull for messages. This means it will be slow at detecting new messages and it creates unnecessary traffic (expensive).

It also breaks the usual stuff - SIP (what, you don't want free internet calling just because it is a mobile device?). RTP (you don't want to watch video?).

In fact it seems there is perhaps more new inventive service that could be build on the open peer to peer network of IPv6 with mobile devices communicating directly with each other.

Before you go on the usual "but we have NAT hacks that allow some of that stuff to work anyway!", please learn a bit more about IPv6. It is more than just an extra long address field. For example there is something called Mobile IPv6 which could come in very handy for mobile devices. Also IPv6 multicasting is much improved - why, you could broadcast to the world directly from your camera phone.

Re:NAT (5, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824226)

NAT is a solution to address depletion in the same manner than increasing the debt cap is a solution to the US national deficit.

NAT, to a networking professional, is an abomination. It functions literally by breaking TCP/IP and lying to network neighbors. It functions by breaking the rules networks are designed and intended to play by, and overuse of NAT prevents any intelligence in routing and networking. Imagine if mailing addresses were limited in the same manner. Everything is a PO Box. Now imagine several layers of PO Boxes have to be traversed for anything to be delivered.

Moving to IPv6 is the right way to fix this. It's not easy, but it's the right way to do it.

Re:NAT (2)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824286)

There are only 65536 ports, so you are limited to how many users you can stick behind NAT.

Re:NAT (0)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824614)

what ? 65536 ports should be enough for anybody?

Security, Mobility, Configurability (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824568)

IPv4 is inherently insecure. IPv4 is inherently immobile. IPv4 is inherently non-extensible.

IPv6 is inherently secure. IPv6 is inherently mobile. IPv6 is inherently extensible.

Now, tell me which makes the most sense for mobile devices?

APNIC Info (1)

ausrob (864993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823830)

Here's what we got from APNIC this morning: Dear APNIC community We are writing to inform you that as of Friday, 15 April 2011, the APNIC pool reached the Final /8 IPv4 address block, bringing us to Stage Three of IPv4 exhaustion in the Asia Pacific. For more information about Stage Three, please refer to: http://www.apnic.net/ipv4-exhaustion/stages [apnic.net] Last /8 address policy: APNIC's objective during Stage Three is to provide IPv4 address space for new entrants to the market and for those deploying IPv6. ..but given how fast APNIC reached the final /8, you'd think it won't be long before they run out entirely.

I for one, welcome our new ipv6 overlords (1)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823876)

"It is a moral imperative" -- Real Genius

Asia first (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824140)

They're the first to be forced into IPv6. So they'll be further along the learning curve. Welcome our new networking overlords indeed.

How do I... (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824592)

Turn running out of IP addresses into a drinking game?
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>