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!

Sales of Unused IPv4 Addresses Gaining Steam

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the get-em-before-they're-gone dept.

The Internet 329

netbuzz writes "A growing number of U.S. carriers and enterprises are hedging their bets on IPv6 by purchasing blocks of unused IPv4 addresses through official channels or behind-the-scenes deals. There is certainly no shortage of stock, as these address brokers have blocks available that range from 65,000 to more than a million IPv4 addresses. And it's not just large companies and institutions benefiting, as one attorney who's involved in the market says he represents a woman who came into possession of a block of IPv4 address in the early '90s and now, 'She's in her 70s, and she's going to have a windfall.''"

cancel ×

329 comments

Bullshit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100637)

What utter and serious bullshit. You cannot own an address, you lease it.

Re:Bullshit (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100677)

You cannot own an address, you lease it.

From who? Come on boys and girls, the person you lease something from is called an... umm... what's that word? Help me out?

Re:Bullshit (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100699)

In this case, ARIN, RIPE, or APNIC.

Re:Bullshit (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101187)

It's called an RIR (Regional Internet Registry)

Re:Bullshit (4, Funny)

FlopEJoe (784551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100963)

You cannot own an address, you lease it.

I can. But that's because I'm not a penniless hippie. Wait... that's something else.

Re:Bullshit (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100683)

They find a way (or pretend to), in much the same way as they find how to "own" an employee Facebook or Twitter account--if the law is not on their side, the post-nasty-legal-threat settlements will be.

Sublet (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100687)

If it's a lease, why can't you sublease the remaining months on your lease of an address range?

Re:Bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100777)

What utter and serious bullshit. You cannot own an address, you lease it.

Just like beer! Amirite?

Re:Bullshit (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100793)

The 70-year-old lady "owns" the lease. She is (apparently) selling her rights to those addresses. So, yes, a person can't "own an address", but you can own the rights to use it.

Re:Bullshit (5, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100913)

What utter and serious bullshit.

What else do you propose?

IPv4 address for regular allocation* have run out at the IANA and APNIC and will soon run out at RIPE and ARIN too.

Meanwhile IPv6 is still in it's infancy with the majority of end users not having access to the IPv6 internet. So if you want to run a public server it needs to have a v4 address.

Under these circumstances a market means that IPv4 address gradually rise in value and as that happens people will re-evalute what applications really need a public V4 address. Lack of a market means that addresses stay where they are even if they could be more lucrative elsewhere stifiling choice.

You cannot own an address, you lease it.

That is true for modern allocations, with older allocations the status is less clear.

But even for modern allocations the RIRs are coming round to the realisation that allowing some form of sales** is a good idea as part of managing the twilight years of IPv4. The alternative is that you will only be able to buy usable hosting services from providers who happen to have a pool of addresses already (most likely hosting providers who are also end-luser ISPs and so have addresses they can recover using ISP level NAT).

* There are still a few held back for special allocations.
** IIRC arin and ripe are requiring the recipiants of such sales to justify their address use to reduce hoarding.

Re:Bullshit (5, Interesting)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101365)

For all intents and purposes the addresses that my company registered in the early 90's are ours. If we want to sell them, there's nothing within ARIN's Number Resource Policy Manual [arin.net] that says that cannot sell all or any part of our address space to anybody else. The transfer has to be done through ARIN and it has to be a group within ARIN's zone, but if we charge for it, ARIN doesn't care.

The Year is 2021 (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100647)

A bust has been made in the digital district of NYC. Agent Friedeggs and his partner, Copbot 4X, have a perp handcuffed in the backseat of their cruiser that is now being piloted by Google's driving software to take him back to the precinct where he'll be booked.

They approach the criminal's ancient Cadillac CTS and open the trunk. Inside is a briefcase packed with millions of little strips of white paper, each bearing an IPv4 address. Copbot 4X applies a small strip of multipurpose adhesive to his index finger with his mouth and reaches down to snag one of the strips. As he feeds it into his mouth and the ping trace times out he emits a satisfied Artoo Detoo whistle. "It's pure," he confirms as Friedeggs nods satisfactorily.

"You know, I think we're finally gonna catch these bastards. These addresses belong on display in the Guggenheim, not ... " He cuts himself off as a warning light goes off on Copbot's torso. "Jesus H. Tesla, they've hacked the GPS signal to our car!" Copbot morphs into a go a cart as Agent Friedeggs draws his Taser and slides across its hood. Cheesy synth horns flair up over wakka guitars as their silent electric motor spins them off down the street.

Re:The Year is 2021 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100701)

Glaring errors.

You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes? The whole system works by computing your location relative to the GPS transmitters whose location are well known - it's impossible to hack something through the GPS signal.

Also, no Copbot would ever sample an unknown IP4 address like that, it might link him to malware or compromise his location. There's a reason why cops have forensic kits. That is, of course, assuming he still cares and doesn't drug himself into sleep mode with a jug of WD40 every night.

Spoof Is a Better Word (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100737)

You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes? The whole system works by computing your location relative to the GPS transmitters whose location are well known - it's impossible to hack something through the GPS signal.

So what happens when someone spams your GPS device with incorrect signals that lead you to believe that you're heading back to point A when in reality you're heading back to point B? Perhaps I should have used the word 'spoof' instead of 'hack' [slashdot.org] but the post itself is a joke.

Also, no Copbot would ever sample an unknown IP4 address like that, it might link him to malware or compromise his location.

I'm not aware of anyone being able to exploit the ping command in such a way today -- perhaps so in this future universe that will never exist ...

Re:Spoof Is a Better Word (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100797)

It was a joke, based on this exchange from the satire movie Showtime about real-cops vs movie-cops:

William Shatner: [advising Trey on how TV cops taste drugs] You spear the knife into the bag... then pick some of the drugs up with the knife... then lightly press it on your tongue. And that is how TV cops taste drugs!
Detective Mitch Preston (played by Robert Deniro): What if it's cyanide? There's a reason real cops don't taste drugs.

Re:Spoof Is a Better Word (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100851)

Also, no Copbot would ever sample an unknown IP4 address like that, it might link him to malware or compromise his location.

I'm not aware of anyone being able to exploit the ping command in such a way today -- perhaps so in this future universe that will never exist ...

The fact that you pinged and got a response means the host on the other end knows you did it too, kind of like hearing a sonar ping in the ocean... But then his "errors" post was a joke too soo....

Re:The Year is 2021 (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100849)

You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes?

Ah, that's where he got you, this is the FUTURE.

Re:The Year is 2021 (5, Funny)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101007)

You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes? The whole system works by computing your location relative to the GPS transmitters whose location are well known - it's impossible to hack something through the GPS signal.

Not if you build a GUI using Visual Basic and backtrace the signal.

Re:The Year is 2021 (5, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101499)

Glaring errors.

You do realize that GPS signals are completely passive, yes? The whole system works by computing your location relative to the GPS transmitters whose location are well known - it's impossible to hack something through the GPS signal.

That was really good. But can you say it again, this time maybe using the voice from the Simpson's Comic Book Guy? That would be epic.

Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100673)

Like drilling for oil, more efficient extraction techniques can efficiently harvest the (many) remaining IPv4 blocks. And let's face it: IPv6 is not favored by the man on the Clapham omnibus. He understands the clean format of IPv4, but IPv6 is just annoying! What's the deal anyway with 2^64 devices on your personal network? This is way over-specified. Some practical geeks need to come up with a clean extension to IPv4 (48 bits should be plenty) that uses the current dot formatting.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

TFoo (678732) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100723)

This is written like a troll, but is actually the most sensible thing that's ever been written about IPV6

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100733)

Started out strong. I like the reference to oil. That could have been modded up funny, until that bullcrap about keeping the dot formatting. Are you really afraid of colons instead of dots? Or is it the hexidecimal numbers that frighten you? IPv6 solves more issues than just IP address exhaustion... autoconfiguration, routing, etc. It's going to happen and you'll have to crack a book. Deal with it.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (5, Funny)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100787)

I completely agree... anyone who complains about IPv6 is a troll.. 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf is incredibly easy to remember.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (3, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100831)

Maybe you should try DNS sometime

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100941)

Maybe you should try DNS sometime

Not sure if DNS solves all of the problems though.

On my home network, I've got my own machines, and I have my work laptop. Since my work laptop isn't allowed to join my "home" workgroup, there is no DNS which will work between by laptop and my machine. I can't change that part of my network config either.

The only way to do file/printer sharing is by IP address. Possibly a limitation of Windows that doesn't allow you to do any 'real' networking between machines unless you buy the Enterprise Super Happy Fun edition ... clearly my Vista Home Ultimate edition isn't capable of doing this.

I'm not convinced that in all cases we have viable DNS which makes these things work ... at least, in my experience Microsoft seems to have removed some functionality which would allow that to work. I'm not really looking to set up a domain controller.

For internal to my own network, I'm not sure what IPV6 offers *me* -- it's a handful of machines behind my firewall, and using IPV4 is far easier. I don't care what happens on the other side of my firewall, but internally I don't see what benefit IPV6 has to me as a home user.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101013)

if it's you and your own little network, you don't even need DNS. That's what /etc/hosts is for.

"For internal to my own network, I'm not sure what IPV6 offers *me*"

If *YOU* happen to live in a world where everyone's telephone is on the Internet, then IPv6 means you actually get to have an IP address.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

sulimma (796805) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101015)

Are you aware that you can run software on windows machines that is not provided by microsoft but by other vendors?

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101151)

Are you aware that you can run software on windows machines that is not provided by microsoft but by other vendors?

Why, no. Here I've been limiting myself to minesweeper, notepad, solitaire, and the calculator. Stupid me. I've been doing this computer thing wrong for the last 20 years.

But, seriously, what software would you suggest which will give me in-house DNS that my locked down work laptop will play nicely with? I can't change the workgroup/domain it's a member of. I've never had much luck in getting two Windows machines to handle file sharing without opening up perms fully since there's no mutual authentication that I can work out unless you have a domain controller.

As I said, some of the things I've tried to do it seems like Windows just refuses to do, so if you actually have some suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101205)

I've never had much luck in getting two Windows machines to handle file sharing without opening up perms fully since there's no mutual authentication that I can work out

What's amusing is that you started out complaining about DNS, and when we get to the bottom of your complaint, it turns out that it's all based on your ignorance of Windows authentication.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101313)

What's amusing is that you started out complaining about DNS

I didn't start out by complaining about it ... I merely said that your oh-so-useless statement of "Maybe you should try DNS sometime" wasn't really offering much insight as to why people still use IPV4 addresses.

and when we get to the bottom of your complaint, it turns out that it's all based on your ignorance of Windows authentication.

So, did you have anything useful or constructive to add? Or are you mostly just here to snark and act like a petulant dick?

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101385)

So, did you have anything useful or constructive to add?

You should crack a book about Windows Authentication. Try running a samba server and look at the debug output

Maybe you can realize that begging for tech support doesn't exactly confirm your credentials for passing judgement about network protocols.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101635)

Maybe you can realize that begging for tech support doesn't exactly confirm your credentials for passing judgement about network protocols.

Are you this much of a douchebag in real life? Or just on the internet?

Because if you're like this in real life, one of these days someone is going to separate you from some of your teeth.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

sulimma (796805) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101291)

Authentication is something different, but the thread is about DNS. BIND, probably the same DNS that your IP-Hoster is running so it is likely proven that your laptop is playing nicely with it, is available for windows. The DHCP server in your router can tell all local machines that they should ask your local DNS to resolve addresses.

Or, you could add all your local devices IP numbers to the hosts file on all machines. For a small number of machines this should be feasible.

I am not an expert on authetification and file sharing, but Samba, LDAP, Kerberos, etc. are all available for windows.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (3, Insightful)

Hawke (1719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101127)

Since my work laptop isn't allowed to join my "home" workgroup, there is no DNS which will work between by laptop and my machine

Huh? Um, exactly what's the DHCP server on that network there? Does that DHCP server advertise a DNS server? Can you modify the DNS server?

Alternately, can turn of the DHCP server on that wireless router that only does caching recursive DNS, and install a DNS server and DHCP server on your other computer, and run that?

And then, why again do you need to run your own DNS server anyway? Won't the people who give you the /64 take requests to add records? Or use one of the dynamic DNS protocols that allows you to register your IP? And I think there's yet another answer that involves anycast and autoconf...

Or maybe I'm just completely not understanding what you mean by "join my 'home' network".

IPv6 has some pretty good autoconf out of the box. You use RADVD to just announce services, you don't need any software managing IP addresses because the nodes will do that themselves. And when you want to use some service that isn't a pure client-server-http thing, the fact that each computer has a unique IP on that other side of the firewall is helpful. And for the most part, the "OMG, that's hard" retoric is horribly overblown. Get a /64. Configure a route-announce daemon (things your ISP can do for you). IPv6! Free!

Setting up a game, I was trying to debug a connection problem someone had, and sent them to a site that tells you IP addresses. A different friend went there, and discovered he had an IPv6 address. His ISP had provided it for him, and he had literately never known. It wasn't relevant. That's the experience you should expect.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101439)

DHCPv6 servers ought to come default on IPv6 routers and other equipment that run IPv6. Heck, if Windows 7 had the ability to configure the network according to DHCPv6, one could set up one's network w/ static, dynamic, public, private and whatever other addresses one needs. Note one thing that's very different in IPv6 - a node can have several IPv6 addresses, something that was not there in IPv4, and therefore be member of different networks @ different times and locations. Really handy for phones, tablets and laptops.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (3, Interesting)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101621)

DHCPv6 is not the only way to do it, so mandating it is kind of silly

With zeroconf and IPv6 autoconfig, you don't actually need to run a DHCP server at all.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101403)

Since my work laptop isn't allowed to join my "home" workgroup, there is no DNS which will work between by laptop and my machine.

At least assign a static IPv6 address to your laptop then add it to your HOSTS file. The biggest issue people have moving from IPv4 to v6 is they're not used to have many IP addresses per machine. This will be the standard for IPv6. Create static addresses.

The only way to do file/printer sharing is by IP address.

On my Win7 network, my $60 HP printer can be addressed via name because of P2P name resolution protocols. Should work if you're in the same broadcast domain and same subnet assuming your systems and devices support the protocols. Even the PS3 resolves and my router sees all the names also. Seems to be a very standard protocol.

For internal to my own network, I'm not sure what IPV6 offers *me*

Probably nothing. Most small internal networks won't benefit. I can think of a lot of benefit it will give me on the internet. tons of IP addresses to allocate to each FreeBSD jail, no NAT issues, and multicast will be f'n awesome once apps start to use it. I see P2P VoIP being very easy with asymmetrical internet connections.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101481)

For internal to my own network, I'm not sure what IPV6 offers *me*

Probably nothing. Most small internal networks won't benefit.

IPv6 has private addresses, just like IPv4 except the chance of collision is vanishingly small. With IPv6 you can properly route packets to your buddy's lan without requiring one of you to change their private IP addresses.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101615)

Your router could easily keep one side ipv4 and the other side ipv6

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100971)

Maybe you should try DNS sometime

The "D" might well mean "Democratic" which means it's socialist and therefore un American.

We'll have none of that nonsense on this USA centric website, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101079)

DNS is great, except I'm sure the bastards at ISP headquarters will still charge a monthly fee for a static ipv6 addy and more for a block.... simply because they CAN... and is there a free dynamic dns solution? Last i checked (some years back), no.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101165)

is there a free dynamic dns solution?

"On my home network, I've got my own machines"

You can run YOUR VERY OWN server for free!

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101037)

They should just dump the entire ip4 address space into 0001::0000-FFFF:0000-FFFF and call it a day. I had originally thought that this was the plan in the beginning. It would only take minor text massaging to convert 0001::FFFF:FFFF to the current standard of 255.255.255.255 (FF.FF.FF.FF)

We could then stop having people throw hissy fits over the numbering convention. They could stick to their AOLesque corner of the internet for as long as they like.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101149)

Hmm, actually ::x.y.z.k is valid, as well as ::FFFF:x.y.z.k (they're used for slightly different things). You need a protocol conversion gateway to make any use of it, of course. And then there's the fact that the gateway will need actual IPv4 addresses to talk to the IPv4 address you want (or a tunnel, etc).

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101597)

Actually, that's one of the first things that the IETF tried - making the first 12 bytes of the address all zero, and just overlaying the last one to be what was called 'IPv4 compatible IPv6 addresses'. This was deprecated in 2004. Another set of addresses, which were ::ffff:w:x:y:z, which was called 'IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses' also existed, but while that's not been deprecated, it's rarely used, its support is implementation dependent and its use is generally discouraged.

Unlike IPv4, where addresses were released on an ad hoc basis, in IPv6, there is a hierarchical release of addresses from IETF to IANA to the 5 RIRs. The RIRs in turn assign it to different ISPs, countries or whatever entities they deal with.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

acoustix (123925) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101289)

Are you really afraid of colons instead of dots?

I'm not sure about the parent, but using colons as separators was insanely stupid. For example:

fe80:0000:0000:0000:0202:b3ff:fe1e:8329
fe80:0:0:0:202:b3ff:fe1e:8329
fe80::202:b3ff:fe1e:8329

The first two examples are a complete IP address. I know that the address is complete and doesn't contain a port number at the end. HOWEVER, the third example doesn't tell me shit. Does "fe80::202:b3ff:fe1e:8329" actually stand for an IP address of "fe80:0000:0000:0000:0202:b3ff:fe1e:8329" or does it stand for "fe80:0000:0000:0000:0000:0202:b3ff:fe1e with port 8329"?

The creators of IPv6 tried too hard.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101435)

Does "fe80::202:b3ff:fe1e:8329" actually stand for an IP address of "fe80:0000:0000:0000:0202:b3ff:fe1e:8329" or does it stand for "fe80:0000:0000:0000:0000:0202:b3ff:fe1e with port 8329"?

The former, your ip:port example would be [fe80::202:b3ff:fe1e]:8329
RFC3986

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101429)

Lets see YOU sir figure up an IP V6 address map for...lets say a 40 person small business, in your head. the problem with IP V6 is that while it is easily MACHINE readable it is sure as fuck not easily HUMAN readable. study after study have shown we humans work best with small patterns that have an easy to follow syntax. Ever notice how many people when giving you a phone number have the same cadence when reading it to you? its dot, dot dot duh, dot dot duh, dot dot duh duh. That is just how the human brain works friend.

I can tell you that when the big switch happens, at least in the flyover states, its gonna be a big fucking mess. Can you HONESTLY say that if someone showed you a pile of IP V6 addresses and said "One of these has a problem in either the address or the subnet" you could just pick it out on the fly? But I bet even your average teen wouldn't have a problem spotting the 184 address in a pile of 192 addresses because it would stick out like a sore thumb.

If they wanted more numbers they should have added more numbers. hell you want to throw in letters? Sure I'd say adding a letter to the front of each group of numbers would have been perfectly fine. but throwing in hex was a BAD move because most normal people, hell most geeks, can't just auto convert hex in their head or spot patterns easily in hex, its just not how we work.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (2)

Dagger2 (1177377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100951)

IPv6 is just annoying! What's the deal anyway with 2^64 devices on your personal network? This is way over-specified.

Having more addresses than you need is annoying? I'd have thought having too few (i.e. the current situation in v4) would be the more annoying situation.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101671)

It's not annoying, but I do think the IETF could have defined it better. Instead of only the first 12 bytes being used for the global prefix, the first 16 bytes could have been so assigned. After that, the subnet could have been assigned 4 or 8 bytes, and the interface ID the remainder. Advantage of this would have been a more hierarchical structure to it, especially at the subnet level.

I understand the auto-configuration argument that has been made - Ethernet link-layer (MAC) addresses are 48 bit, while SCSI cards have 64-bit addresses. However, thinking practically, no network is ever likely to have 4 billion users on a subnet - the collisions would just grind traffic to a standstill. Therefore, it would have been good to cap every network to 4 bytes - which would be enough to cover everything a user could conceivably need.

IP addresses != oil (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101093)

Maybe things (more or less) work that way, but personally I think IP addresses shouldn't be treated as something that can be saved / 'extracted' / bought & sold for profit.

It's not an asset, but an address space, a shared resource, a set of numbers used to manage a world spanning network. Have a share of it assigned to your organization, as necessary to run your piece of that network. When 64K numbers were assigned, other organizations have a need for IP addresses & your organization only needs a couple of hundred IP addresses, the remainder should be re-assigned to those other organizations needing them. The only money involved should be costs that originate directly from bookkeeping of what IP addresses are assigned to whom.

And if IPv4 addresses run out, move to IPv6 to leave IPv4 address space limitations behind in history / LANs / legacy stuff / niche applications.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101295)

You can't "extend" IPv4 without breaking it. 48 bits is not a natural amount when it comes to aligned data. Minor issue, but most CPUs work on 32/64 bits at a time, so at least 64. Also, if you knew anything about the issues of routing, the length of the IP address isn't about having more devices as much as being able to hand out HUGE blocks of IP address, not care about the waste, while benefiting from not having fragmented routing.

Fragmented routing tables is a BIG issue. Route table fragmentation is inversely related to the amount of wasted IP addresses.

Another large benefit of HUGE address ranges is you don't need to have thousands of devices requesting IP addresses from a central broker and causing massive contention. Instead you assume your chance of obtaining an already in-use IP address is almost none. This gives you optimistic IP address allocation, which scales MUCH MUCH better.

Re:Exactly why we don't need IPv6 (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101373)

Like drilling for oil, more efficient extraction techniques can efficiently harvest the (many) remaining IPv4 blocks. And let's face it: IPv6 is not favored by the man on the Clapham omnibus. He understands the clean format of IPv4, but IPv6 is just annoying! What's the deal anyway with 2^64 devices on your personal network? This is way over-specified. Some practical geeks need to come up with a clean extension to IPv4 (48 bits should be plenty) that uses the current dot formatting.

This is an incredibly stupid post - who ever bothers remembering any IP addresses - be it v4 or v6? It's just something the devices use to communicate w/ each other - other than that, people use DNS and easy to remember names. There is a fine argument to be made about colons vs periods, but beyond a point, it's just being anal. And I agree that having 2*64 for a link is overkill, although this was probably done to enable auto-configuration. This is one thing where I think that the designers of IPv6 could have gone w/ 64:32:32 instead of 48:16:64 for their split b/w the global prefix, subnet and interface ID.

class a blocks (4, Interesting)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100711)

ford could've averted their recent financial woes by auctioning off their 16 million ip addresses http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-19-0-0-0-1 [arin.net]

Re:class a blocks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100771)

How do you think they survived without a bailout? They got loans on these addresses as collateral.

Re:class a blocks (5, Informative)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100869)

Ford was profitable in 09, 10, and 11. [yahoo.com]

So by "recent" I assume you mean 2008, when it lost 14.6 billion [businessweek.com] .

From TFA, each address is worth about $12.

So unless math has changed and 12 x 16million equals 14.6 billion... No, they could not have "averted their recent financial woes by auctioning off their addresses".

not for sale! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100713)

I will never sell my ip address for any amount of money! It's 127.0.0.1!
It follows me where ever I go - it's very valuable, too.

Re:not for sale! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100875)

I will never sell my ip address for any amount of money! It's 127.0.0.1! It follows me where ever I go - it's very valuable, too.

I know! 127.0.0.1 is like the best pr0n site ever!

Best of all, it knows exactly what I'm into and don't show all kinds of crap (literally AND figuratively) like some other pr0n sites.

Thanks, buddy! You're the best!

Re:not for sale! (1)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101193)

I know! 127.0.0.1 is like the best pr0n site ever!

I did not know that about you..

Re:not for sale! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101009)

mine is 192.168.1.101. Good luck hacking into that!

Re:not for sale! (1)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101377)

mine is 192.168.1.101. Good luck hacking into that!

No need to hack; I have root on that box

take the names of individuals and organizations... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100717)

...doing this and make it impossible for them to get an ipv6 address. Or just shoot them in the head.

IPv4 forever? (2)

ACK!! (10229) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100721)

It seems that we have been running out of addresses for 10 years or something and everyone has been talking about moving to IPv6 since the late ninteties ? I am sure there is a limited range of numbers and the issue is real but also seems like fodder for sensationalist tech journal articles.

Re:IPv4 forever? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100763)

Yes and no - we have been running out, but we also haven't been sitting idly by while that happens. Stuff like NAT has become far more common, which takes the pressure off for a little while. It's not too different from the whole oil crisis - we have a limited amount, but new technologies and recycling techniques can extend the date where it's finally completely exhausted.

Re:IPv4 forever? (4, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100779)

That's nothing. Wait until you see what happens when the clock rolls around on midnight on Dec 31st, 1999.

Re:IPv4 forever? (4, Insightful)

omglolbah (731566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101325)

Several oil rigs would have gone into shutdown had there not been an update to the timestamping of data before the change-over.

That nothing happens is not a case of 'there was no problem' it is a case of 'almost all shit got fixed'.

Re:IPv4 forever? (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100981)

Yes, we've seen this iceberg coming for well over a decade now and we're only just now starting to really turn the wheel. There is a lot of inertia across the board. The good news is that there has been a lot of behind the scenes work done, including getting IPv6 in most consumer and commercial devices. Old hardware is still a problem. Worse, on the Cisco and other large router vendor side, many of the earlier devices supported IPv6 in software only, meaning that it would work fine for a lab or network without much IPv6 traffic, but if you tried to switch over everything to IPv6 you would crush the router. This problem should go away over time as older hardware is retired and replaced.

Re:IPv4 forever? (5, Interesting)

paulpach (798828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101163)

It seems that we have been running out of addresses for 10 years or something and everyone has been talking about moving to IPv6 since the late ninteties ? I am sure there is a limited range of numbers and the issue is real but also seems like fodder for sensationalist tech journal articles.

You are 100% correct. It was clear then and it is clear now how it will play out. All it takes is just a little analytic thinking: We will never run out of IPv4 addresses. Yes, you read it right: NEVER.

What will happen is that as supply of IPv4 remains flat, and demand for it goes up, supply and demand laws kick in, and the price of an IPv4 address goes up. As prices go up, people sitting on unused addresses will start selling them, and people that need them will start buying them (This article is a good example). So the market will naturally redistribute IPv4 addresses from wasteful uses to more productive uses. This will also mean that there will ALWAYS be an IPv4 address for you to purchase if you want to pay the price, that is why I say we will never run out of IPv4 addresses.

There will be a point, where cost of an IPv4 address will be greater than the cost of switching to IPv6. This threshold will start happening for a few sectors first. My guess is Business to Business applications and back office services first. At some point cell phones too since there are so many. At some point, ISP will start offering an IPv6 only plan with some backward compatible proxy which would be cheaper than IPv4 plan for consumers with limitations. Web sites will want to be optimized for these consumers, and will start offering their content in both protocols. This will make IPv6 switch less and less costly as more content is available for it. Once enough consumers are in IPv6, web sites will start ignoring IPv4 altogether to save the cost of an IPv4 address.

Eventually, enough momentum will be gained by IPv6 that IPv4 will go the way of the typewriter, where it is available, but nobody cares.

This will be a smooth transition, no crisis, no armagedon, just free market pushing the change slowly and efficiently. This process will take years. No one is or should be in a rush to switch or panic, just switch when it is cost effective to do so.

sounds a bit facebooky (5, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100783)

Sure, windfall now, but next month when IPv6 day [worldipv6day.org] comes and all the IPv6 sites stay lit, they'll be worth a rapidly diminishing amount.

ArsTechnica has a nice piece about IPv6 [arstechnica.com] and why it's not going to be such a disaster thing after all, add to that the IPv6-capable [netgear.com] home [dlink.com] routers [cisco.eu] that are actually being made (at last!) and the ISPs who are rolling out IPv6 networking to their customers... and it's all looking rosy.

Re:sounds a bit facebooky (2)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101029)

IPv6 means unique IP's for everyone of your devices
that means no need for NAT and your "real" IP will be visible on the internets
marketers will love it since there will be no more need for cookies

Re:sounds a bit facebooky (1)

Dagger2 (1177377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101191)

Until they discover that Windows has privacy addresses turned on by default, which basically means that their address-based cookies are cleared every day.

Re:sounds a bit facebooky (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101261)

You don't even need cookies at all if you just track their IP address

Re:sounds a bit facebooky (1)

Dagger2 (1177377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101343)

Yes, as I was saying, privacy addresses. What good does tracking the IP address do when they switch to a new IP every 24 hours?

Re:sounds a bit facebooky (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101565)

Who is switching IP addresses? With IPv6, your ISP has no shortage, so they will just give you a permanent one.

Tons of IPv4s are wasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100817)

I'm well aware of at least one organization which owns a /8 network, and they don't need it. Within this organization, extremely few nodes are globally-routable, everything is firewalled up-stream, and all outbound internet traffic goes through proxies which actually mask the original class A so it's not obvious which organization the traffic is coming from.

Lab devices all get real, global IP addresses, even on small subnets. The whole thing is an insane waste when I'm quite quite sure that everything could easily be on a 10.x.x.x internal network.

I suspect they're just hoarding until the value is too high to not sell.

Another lost opportutity (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100879)

I almost picked up a class b in the early days but i knew i didn't 'need' it, so never did.

Of course never thought this 'internet' thing would ever be of the slightest interest to the average guy..

Doh/2

Re:Another lost opportutity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101513)

make that Doh/16

What are the chances (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100881)

That ISPs are buying all of them so they can monopolize the market. The small guys who little funds didn't do the several hundred milion dollar buying binges. Now if you want 4g for your next phone purchase it must be AT&T!

I could see companies like Cisco buying all of them too so they can force you to upgrade to newer routers with IPv6 support etc.

It's Big Business (1)

stereoroid (234317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100885)

I'm of the opinion that Class A addresses were behind some of the large IT mergers. For example, DEC (16.0.0.0/8) was taken over by Compaq, who were later taken over by HP (15.0.0.0/8). So HP owns two adjacent Class A address spaces. That's got to be worth a pretty packet, and they don't really need 32 million addresses, do they?

Re:It's Big Business (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100917)

When all the IP v4 addresses are gone they can raise the price to several hundred dollars per address. Not too bad on a $5 investment and I bet will save the company and boast the share price as a result.

IBM has MANY IP addresses too. However, they bought them in the 1990s when they were much much bigger than today and had a half million employees.

Hoarding? (1)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | more than 2 years ago | (#40100953)

Sure we should all move to IPv6, but does anyone else think that hoarding a scarce resource just makes it scarcer?

Some of the early players were granted large swaths of IP space and they should return them if they are no longer needed.

Once again, a few greedy players screw things up for everybody else.

Re:Hoarding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101209)

Exactly. They were issued these blocks in good faith. They are hoarding them, and they dont own them - they need to return them so they can actually be used. They dont own them and they are acting in bad faith holding onto them. Of course now that there is money to be made selling IP addresses, the scum is going to rise to the top and try to take as much of a bite as they can. Kind of like the domain squatters of old, snatching up whatever they could to try and sell it to someone that would actually want to use it.

This of course is worse, its a finite resource, it doesnt belong to the people that got the allocations and as they clearly arent using them (why they are selling them) that should be a pretty indicator that they need to taken away from them.

Here come the bottom feeders (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40100985)

And here come the bottom feeders. For example, Addrex. I cant believe anyone would want to do business with Addrex, the CEO Peter Thimmesch is a notorious conman thats destroyed more lives and ripped off more investors than I can count. Just look at the littered wrecks of companies hes been involved with.

Well, I guess if clueless people want to part with their money...

ARIN needs to just take back the address space if someone isnt using it. And this nonsense about needing a million IPs is absurd. Come on, no one is rolling out a data center with a million new boxes. And all of them internet facing? Really? No multi-tier architectures?

Nevertheless, ARIN needs to take back these allocations. No one should be allowed "own" these address spaces. If every home user can't own the IP they are allocated, then neither should anyone else. Its a finite resource and if you arent using it anymore, then give it back so it can be allocated fairly through the same process everyone else has to follow (and yes, I know its a block, but come on whos actually using a /8?! Give it back!). Otherwise this is just more gaming of the system by corrupt big moneyed interests.

Re:Here come the bottom feeders (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101123)

Come on, no one is rolling out a data center with a million new boxes. And all of them internet facing? Really? No multi-tier architectures?

Apple sells 13 millon iPhones in a quarter. They're ALL internet facing, no multi-tier architectures, and they ALL need IP addresses!

Re:Here come the bottom feeders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101467)

Now thats just silly, the carriers already have the net space to do that. You dont see them howling for more. And even if they did, despite the cries to the contrary, typically most clients dont need end to end routable address spaces. They get by just fine with NAT, so even if you did run low on address you could either NAT or hell just use IPv6 for them. Most phone companies NAT their mobile phones now because their customers dont want routable IP addresses for their phones to do all the things people do, and guess what no one cares!

And besides, IPv6 is here now. If a company wants a 1 million IPs, they can get them now with IPv6. Do you really think they are going to spend tens of millions of dollars on IPv4 space? Thats just terrible engineering. And if you are are worried they wont be able to reach IPv4 just setup a 6 to 4 NAT bridge.

Really, this isnt a real problem. Its a fake market created by opportunistic con men. When was the last time you couldnt get an IP address, a routable one on the Internet?

Regulation (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101035)

I don't normally support regulation and I am not sure I'd vote for this idea if asked to myself but I want to put it out there anyway.

What if we ban, that is right ban, the use ipv4 on publicly accessible networks after say 2018. Make it illegal to route ip4v addressed packet for a third party. This would force the move to ipv6. Which I think is good for freedom and the little guy. Yes that is right a forced migration is good for the little guy.

Its big business that has interests in keeping everyone on IPv4 and its actually big business who have the bigger investment in ipv4 only gear. The little guy can afford migrate.

What this is really about is ipv4 implies NAT. NAT implies third party brokers, which imply track ability, and opportunities to create digital toll booths. You can't just send files directly to each other; oh no they have be posted to some file sharing site so they can show you adds and the NSA has a good opportunity to data mine.

Re:Regulation (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101413)

That's a bit draconian. And probably unenforceable. And probably unconstitutional, come to think of it.

A more tolerable way would be "lead by example": pass a law saying all government networks must be IPv6 (both internally, and externally) by 2018, and that any networking and computing equipment purchased with taxpayer dollars after 2014 must be fully IPv6-capable (possibly with an exception for NSA et al. to buy completely non-TCP/IP stuff, if that's a thing they do). I know they already have some requirements like this, although I believe it's just for operating systems right now.

With the size of our current government, this means anyone not supporting IPv6 automatically loses out on a huge market. Remember, this isn't just Obama's Blackberry, this means every IRS website, every Senator's secretary's assistant's netbook, every Toughbook shipped off to ___istan, every security camera watching the grass grow next to some half-forgotten FEMA warehouse. It's a big market, that's all I'm saying.

Re:Regulation (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101537)

It is hard for me to see why it would be unconstitutional. Fits within the Commerce Clause. Remember, as far as laws are concerned, stupid doesn't mean unconstitutional.

Re:Regulation (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101461)

More simple than that. There's profit in scarcity. Eventually home accounts will be NATed by default. If you currently have a public IP, you may wake up one morning to find out otherwise (while troubleshooting your home router in frustration). If you want a public dynamic IP, you will have to pay extra for that. If you want a static public IP, that's an additional cost on top of that. The day of double NAT or being stuck with using your ISPs router/switch will be the "new normal". Get used to it.

And don't try and use the argument that you need to establish a VPN for work. They will tell you first to fuck off, and secondly, that's what a business account is for. So so sorry that our NAT breaks the GRE protocol.

Re:Regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101509)

So you advocate the use of force against people who don't adopt your brave new world (but HEY, you might not vote for it). Got it.

Yes, let's absolutely force the little guy to spend $100 he doesn't have because he's been unemployed for 18 months. That'll be great for him. We are such good people for making him do this!

No, big business would NEVER benefit from people being forced to buy things. This is all about the little guy.

Why does Valve care about IPv4 so much? (1, Funny)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101083)

I mean, why is Valve giving IPv4 so much more steam? Is this a sale thing or something like that?

Re:Why does Valve care about IPv4 so much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40101269)

Terrible joke, hang yourself.

captcha: rectum

The key to IPv6 (3, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101101)

This is the key to transitioning to IPv6. People will transition to IPv6 as costs increase for IPv4. When transitioning to IPv6 is cheaper than buying IPv4 addresses, the change will come quickly.

Hopefully people will observe this and learn how change happens. It doesn't happen because you wish it would. It doesn't happen because you know The Right Way for everyone to manage their lives or their businesses or their operations. It is driven by tangible benefits, not ideology.

(Magically, this results in people seeing tangible benefits from their decisions rather than absorbing "unexpected" costs related to idealistic or mandatory early adoption.)

Pray, tell (3, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101159)

Mr. Attorney:

as one attorney who's involved in the market says he represents a woman who came into possession of a block of IPv4 address in the early '90s and now, 'She's in her 70s, and she's going to have a windfall

How, in any tangible way is she anything more than a cybersquatter? Also: 'came into possession'? What, they 'fell off the back of a truck'? Sounds as sketchy as the legal profession.

Re:Pray, tell (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101427)

Well it's the same as somebody parked on "sex.com" right? I mean if a .com can cybersquat why can't an old granny?

Re:Pray, tell (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101617)

If I buy a few million numbers out of a range of several billions when only a few thousand numbers of the entire range are ever going to be used, am I cybersquatting?
What about if two decades later it turns out everybody was wrong and we ARE using most of the range?

Maybe she knew somebody who got assigned 123.x.x.x and he gave her 123.123.x.x as a birthday present because he was broke so he couldn't give her a real present?

Those IP numbers were considered pretty much worthless when the internet started, with ranges of millions being handed out to anybody that needed a few dozen numbers. Heck, 127.x.x.x is 99.99999% wasted.

the only way ipV6 will become common (0)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101347)

1 by federal law require that all routers (even the rockbottom cheapo ones) be able to deal with IPv6 when sold after %date%
2 require that all ISP provided equipment be IPv6 capable by %date%+15 days WITH NO CUSTOMER COST
3 require that the ISP backend stuff route IPv6 by %date%+45 days

at 60 days pull the FCC license for any ISP not in complience

set %date% at a fixed point no extensions no cutout deals

(oh and ISPs should be required to at no cost give a reasonable block of IP addresses to all customers)

Re:the only way ipV6 will become common (2)

Vairon (17314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101645)

> 1 by federal law require that all routers (even the rockbottom cheapo ones) be able to deal with IPv6 when sold after %date%
What in the US Constitution gives the US federal government authority to regulate the protocols supported by routers?

> 2 require that all ISP provided equipment be IPv6 capable by %date%+15 days WITH NO CUSTOMER COST
What in the US Constitution gives the US federal government authority to regulate ISP provided equipment with regard to network protocols?

> 3 require that the ISP backend stuff route IPv6 by %date%+45 days
What in the US Constitution gives the US federal government authority to regulate ISP backbone protocols?

Furthermore, ISP's don't have FCC licenses so there's no license to be pulled.

This one quote shows how dumb this whole thing is. (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40101359)

"It will be a slow, natural progression forward, with a lot of legacy IPv4 content and assets lying around,"

IPv4 content? Seriously? Assets? You mean old routers that don't support IPv6? if businesses have been buying enterprise network gear that only supports IPv4 then they deserve to have stacks of them sitting around, but there's no reason that an enterprise still can't use a LANA scheme and use NAT-PT at the edge. I swear people make the whole IPv6 thing seem like it will change the whole world, it won't. The content will be the same folks, you can still go to youtube [networkworld.com] and facebook [facebook.com] . Although Facebook isn't quite there as yet.

it's just an evolution and yes the ISPs and large enterprises need to support it. You can even get your ISP to support NAT-PT or use tunneling, it will just take time. There are many transition standards such as NAT64, SIIT and DNS64 that also help in all this "confusion" but honestly folks if we can just get the ISPs to adopt it widely most of this confusion will go away and while we have IPv6 Days this is more an evolution not a revolution for your favorite Web apps. If you're worried that you're stuck with obsolete software or hardware that locks you into IPv4, don't worry you can still use it. Yes it will take a little change but it won't be like having to set the time on your VCR. Wait, er uhm, DVD player. Er Blu-Ray player, yeah that's it.

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...