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!

RIPE Region Runs Out of IPv4 Addresses

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the problems-that-need-to-be-addressed dept.

The Internet 241

New submitter 8-Track writes "The RIPE NCC, the Regional Internet Registry for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, distributed the last blocks of IPv4 address space from the available pool. This means they are now distributing IPv4 address space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) from the last /8. An ISP may receive one /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses), even if they can justify a larger allocation. This /22 allocation will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. Time to move to IPv6!"

cancel ×

241 comments

The internet is full. Go away. (5, Funny)

plover (150551) | about 2 years ago | (#41335363)

Don't we already have enough people on the internet? Why do we keep encouraging more? :-)

Note: to all you humor-impaired people, the smiley face indicates this is a JOKE.

Re:The internet is full. Go away. (2)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41335513)

I see a huge business opportunity!

1. Fuck IPv6. Let's keep the IP addresses a rare and highly desired commodity;
2. Charge an exorbitant fee every time a DHCP request is serviced;
3. Profit!

Re:The internet is full. Go away. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41336549)

Too late, the ISPs already got that covered with their insane prices per fixed IP address.

Re:The internet is full. Go away. (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335745)

Wasn't Iran going to build their own Persian Intranet? Surely they have a few IPv4 addresses that can now be returned to the pool.

Re:The internet is full. Go away. (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#41336385)

Don't we already have enough people on the internet? Why do we keep encouraging more? :-)

Note: to all you humor-impaired people, the smiley face indicates this is a JOKE.

But the internet is serious business! [techi.com]

time to do... something (5, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#41335367)

I will soon run out of underwear (I have been told this since 2009). I still have not done anything about it despite holes in them. Count on my continued responsiveness to this problem.

Re:time to do... something (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41336169)

The trouble is there has been a chicken and egg problem.

The internet is mostly a network of buisnesses (with the occasional academic network thrown in). Some of those buisnesses sell service to other buisnesses and consumers, some just use it to support their main buisness.

There is basically no benefit and significant cost to an buisness in deploying dual stack while v6 only nodes are basically unheard of.
You can't really deploy v6 only nodes while there are a significant number of v4 only nodes*

So for each individual buisness (whether ISP or user) that makes up the internet the rational thing to do was to sit and wait and hope others would take the costs of being early adoptors of IPv6.

*unless you use something like NAT64 or DS-lite but if nodes were ok with being behind those they would probablly also be ok with being behind NAT44 so the only real benefit to doing it would be if your internal network was massive.

Re:time to do... something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336171)

Peak IPv4 or Peak Underwear, That is the Question!

Re:time to do... something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336351)

Peak IPv4 or Peak Underwear, That is the Question!

Peal IPv4 or Peek Underwear. FTFY. My invoice is in the email routing on an IPv8 network.

Edit - Captcha: conjugal

IPv6? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335373)

There is no such thing as IPv6. Once we run out of IPv4 addresses, the internet will implode and everything will be lost.

The rapture is here!

Re:IPv6? (2)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | about 2 years ago | (#41335457)

2112 - end of the world!

oh wait

Re:IPv6? (0)

dcsmith (137996) | about 2 years ago | (#41335511)

2112 - end of the world!

oh wait

Actually, that was Rush's best album. 2012 is the end of the world.

Re:IPv6? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335639)

Saying "that was Rush's best album" is like saying "that's the best bowl of oatmeal" Even at it's best it's mediocre.

Re:IPv6? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335689)

I've heard the same thing said about sex with your mother, truth be told. Actually, I believe it was likened to a 'herpes nest' whatever that means...

Re:IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335919)

I think they meant "harpies nest".

Re:IPv6? (-1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41335799)

And a big "Fuck you" to you pal. Name the number of bands who have been around for almost forty years, that have 20 studio albums under the belt, sell out pretty much every tour they've done since the late 1970s, and the 20th album is a commercial and critical success. Oh, and they also have the guy who is pretty much considered the best rock drummer of them all.

No one says you have to like Rush, or any other band, but you remind me of those arrogant holier-than-thou types who go "The Beatles were talentless hacks."

Re:IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335861)

Man, you were right up until the end, Rush is an impressive band that makes amazing music. But, the Beatles sucked.

Re:IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335873)

By that reasoning, it's all about popularity, and Justin Bieber and Nickleback have exorbitant amounts of talent.

Rush has only been able to last that long because their fans age with them.

Re:IPv6? (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | about 2 years ago | (#41336255)

The problem is you're trying to apply reasoning to taste. You and the posters above you. Talent may be measurable to some degree, but it would be an enormous waste of time to determine and measure all of the criteria, and most performers are unlikely to participate in the process; but music quality is determined by more than just talent.

As a silly example, it's debatable who has more talent in a class of guitarists which includes folks like Joe Satriani, Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai and so on, but I personally am more inclined to listen to Steve Vai, because his style appeals to me more than the others. That doesn't make him better or worse, and other people with different taste might prefer the others, and quite a lot of people prefer none of the above.

Taste isn't a measurement of talent, and measuring talent is largely pointless except for the talented seeking to advance their craft or career.

Re:IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336163)

oooooohhh yeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh....
that was almost as good as a arithmetic error troll

Re:IPv6? (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 years ago | (#41336167)

Popularity != talent. Evidence: Britney Spears.

Re:IPv6? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41336303)

Rush has one of the best drummers in rock history, and a bass player that is considered by many to certainly be in the top ten or twenty. It's hard to say Rush does not have musical talent, even if the music they make isn't to your liking.

Re:IPv6? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41336261)

I guess I am way behind the curve here, but what's the easiest way to tell if my computer and home router can access an IPv6 host?

And since I'm running a small webserver from home, which I presume will remain IP4 indefinitely, what's the easiest way to tell if somebody with an IP6 address can access it?

Re:IPv6? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336513)

http://test-ipv6.com/ [test-ipv6.com]

Re:IPv6? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336561)

Does your ISP provide you with an IPv6 connection or strictly IPv4? The easiest way to roll-out IPv6 is to begin at the end-user level by swapping out their existing Internet modem provided by their ISPs with devices which provide IPv6 external connection and IPv4/IPv6 internal connection so any internal routers or switches or access points can remain in use on the internal network. Then once the roll-out is completed the ISP provided IPv6 traffic to-from their customers and IPv4/IPv6 traffic from the ISP to the backbone allowing time for the "content providers" to migrate to IPv6 over a period of 2 years. By content provider I mean anyone running a website et al. The entire transition could be phased in over 3 years from start to finish if and only if it becomes mandated under "national infrastructure protection" policy. This way, large organizations can use their IPv4 blocks forever on their internal networks with only external interfaces needing to migrate to IPv6.

Re:IPv6? (4, Funny)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 2 years ago | (#41336273)

>The rapture is here!

It's the IPocalypse!

Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335385)

Time to crackdown and revoke/reclaim IP's

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335433)

or, you know, just use ipv6.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335493)

ISP's/corporations have to commit to that. And you know how they are, spending money is hard for them to swallow.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41335597)

Yea, some still use apps written for IE6 and haven't moved since.

Redoing their network to accept IPv6 is not going to be high on their priority.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 2 years ago | (#41335615)

ISP's/corporations have to commit to that

No they don't. Any ISP/corp that doesn't want to use IPv6 is free to sit back and watch parts of the Internet become unavailable to them and their users. Of course by choosing this path they chose to eventually die, but it is their choice to make.

Doing something other than IPv6 simply because people won't make the effort is like sticking to horse-drawn vehicles because people don't want the hassle of having to visit petrol pumps and towns/cities don't want the hassle of constructing the required infrastructure.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41336341)

Any ISP/corp that doesn't want to pay for IPv4 addresses for their public services and pay for some mechanism to allow their users to access servers on the IPv4 internet is free to sit back and watch as they lose the ability to sell to many of their customers and buy from many of their suppliers over the internet. Of course by chosing this path they have a good chance of going broke (or getting overridden in a shareholder revolt) sooner rather than later but it is their choice to make.

Now personally I will offer any services i'm responsible for v6 where the provider offers it because I belive it is the right thing to do but i'm not going to pretend there is any strong reason for a buisness to do so.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41335823)

And I would, if my ISP had ipv6 addresses available.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336349)

Switch to one that provides IPv6?

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41335553)

Time to crackdown and revoke/reclaim IP's

So there's 7 billion people and 4 billion IP addresses, how'd that work even if you could reclaim every range and achieve perfect routing and perfect efficiency meaning you couldn't be online at home or at work and on the phone at the same time. You'd just run into the same problem a little bit down the road as another billion people go online. Pretty soon there won't be any other choice.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335813)

You blindly assume that everyone online on the net needs a seperate IP address.
But that is clearly wrong. The place where I work has only 16 public IP addresses, yet there are about 500 PCs buzzing along with people surfing and mailing.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335923)

And it took us years to sort of work around the problems with NAT in all the protocols, so that things now mostly work behind a NAT... as long as you control the NAT, anyway. This is a stop-gap, not a solution.

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336107)

potato / potahto, stop-gap / solution.

What you call a problem I call "feature"; one that allows an extra layer of control between point A and B-C-D-E-....

Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41336087)

You blindly assume that everyone online on the net needs a seperate IP address. But that is clearly wrong. The place where I work has only 16 public IP addresses, yet there are about 500 PCs buzzing along with people surfing and mailing.

Considering that we're about 2.3 billion people online [internetworldstats.com] and we're already talking about running out, we're using considerably more than 1 IP/person today. And if the entire world eventually reach North American penetration rates there's another 3 billion coming online. And most now believe the world population will peak at 10 billion so there's another 2.3 billion as well. Yes, with enough NAT you could probably make it sort of work but it'd be the end of the Internet as we know it. Only ISPs, big companies and people with way too much money would have a public IP that others could talk to. The rest could only access Facebook and YouTube and such via NAT.

Not unexpected (2)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 2 years ago | (#41335397)

I hope that this will serve as another incentive to move to IPv6. Allocations by RIPE NCC have already been very conservative over the last year (only allowing you to apply for new IPv4 space for three months of growth), so by the end of the year, there will be a real squeeze at the final customer level. I am lucky in that my ISP provides both IPv4 and native IPv6, so I will not be affected, but very few people are in such a position.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41335449)

Or, as your IP sees it: "Crap, we're out of IP addresses. How much will it cost to retrain our network team, reconfigure our network, test every model of every device and deal with the tech support cost when it inevitably causes compatibility issues? Holy craptacular megabucks. Screw it, they're all going on NAT, only those nasty p2p users and people using VoIP to avoid paying our extortionate phone call bills will be affected."

Re:Not unexpected (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 2 years ago | (#41335507)

Not sure. Carrier Grade NAT is quite expensive as well, and a big mess to administer. It is much worth than NAT at your home router as plug and play can be used by programmes to open ports dynamically. So once you go CGN, expect many support calls because of broken stuff.

I expect most ISPs to hand out native IPv6, and - once out of IPv4 - offer CGN as a stopgap for users to reach IPv4-only servers. The biggest and most popular sites are IPv6 enabled already, and I would expect the others to follow suit as well.

Re:Not unexpected (4, Interesting)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 2 years ago | (#41335539)

Yeah agreed. I've been on native IPv6 (dual stack, obviously) for, hmm, approaching two years now (I'm in the APNIC area so they ran out of IPv4 a while ago) and honestly I'm only reminded of the fact when someone brings IPv6 up in an article or something. The changeover was easy from the user's perspective - it just works. Indeed I suspect many users of my ISP don't even know they are on IPv6.

The resistance and heel-dragging on the changeover in many places/companies is a bit mystifying to me. It's not really that hard.

Re:Not unexpected (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41335839)

Yeah agreed. I've been on native IPv6 (dual stack, obviously) for, hmm, approaching two years now (I'm in the APNIC area so they ran out of IPv4 a while ago) and honestly I'm only reminded of the fact when someone brings IPv6 up in an article or something. The changeover was easy from the user's perspective - it just works. Indeed I suspect many users of my ISP don't even know they are on IPv6. The resistance and heel-dragging on the changeover in many places/companies is a bit mystifying to me. It's not really that hard.

Well as long as you are on dual stack you have an IPv4 address for everything that needs an IPv4 address, but it doesn't solve anything as no more people can run that than there are IPv4 addresses. How much would cease to work if you went IPv6 only? Because that's the only Internet connection they can offer soon. And if you don't see the problem you don't know the average company's pile of legacy/custom code that will all assume it's using IPv4 and nothing else that nobody knows or the vendor will charge a ton to fix. To rip out all the IPv4 code and go IPv6 you'd need another coding frenzy like y2k, and your chances to conjure that kind of doomsday scenario is nil. IPv4 was so good that there's now decades of old code that will assume an IP is always a dotted quad and can fit in 4 bytes. Nobody wants to be the one who breaks production systems just to go IPv6 for no tangible reason.

Re:Not unexpected (2)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 2 years ago | (#41335963)

Well you're right of course - when they truly run out of IPv4, those that get connected after that date will only be able to 'see' the IPv6 portions of the internet. Which is why it's important that we get at least ~most~ of the net running IPv6 before that happens. Currently let's face it, most stuff is still IPv4 only (although the major sites - Google, Facebook, anything served from Akamai etc. are all nicely dual stacked now, and I'm noticing it increasing rapidly ... my router reports approx 15% of my total traffic is now native IPv6; a year ago it was ~1%)

And yeah I know what you mean about legacy code in companies...that's a big issue that everyone will have to deal with. But I was more referring to first getting ISPs and residential/home users up and running on IPv6 - they are much easier since all modern OSes, browsers, phones etc. support it. And increasing consumer/residential connections is the main reason for IPv4 exhaustion (rapid uptake of connections in Asia particularly), so if we can deal with that side of it, it leaves companies that need to remain dual-stacked for legacy reasons with that much more time to deal with the situation.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

Wamoc (1263324) | about 2 years ago | (#41336031)

Except you don't need to overhaul everything to IPv6. You can run a local IPv4 intranet for the legacy systems and only connect to the public internet on IPv6. Of course this requires every web facing server to have IPv6, which still needs a lot of work.

Re:Not unexpected (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#41336459)

How much would cease to work if you went IPv6 only?

Less than what ceases to work by going in a NAT.

That's because nobody will go IPv6 only, they'll go IPv6 and get behind a IPv4 NAT. Well, at least the lucky ones will, others will have only the NAT.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41336473)

Because that's the only Internet connection they can offer soon.

Bullshit, they can offer you:

v4 only with a private IP and ISP level NAT
v6+v4 dual stack with a public v6 IP a private v4 IP and ISP level v4 NAT
v6 with a public v6 IP and ds-lite
v6 with a public v6 IP with NAT64 and DNS64

They will also be able to offer public v4 as a premium service once they push their bottom tier of users onto one of the above.

Remember your ISP's existing v4 IPs won't dissapear, they will just have to reduce the average number used per customer (or buy IP addresses on the market) if they want to increase the number of customers they serve.

ipv6 (-1, Flamebait)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41335401)

GOOD FUCKING LUCK

Re:ipv6 (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335517)

It's already out there everywhere, and you won't have to do a thing. There are transitional technologies built into several layers to ensure this. You won't be affected unless you're in a position that you're needing to configure a transitional technology to use.

Faggot

Re:ipv6 (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 2 years ago | (#41336597)

An incomplete list of people who will be affected:

1: admins/moderators of interactive websites who find it harder to identify/ban users because of the inevitable rise of ISP level NAT (granted this is already a problem to some degree but is likely to get much worse).
2: users hit by bans aimed at thier shared IP either because the website owner didn't know it was shared or because they decide that the collateral damage is acceptable.
3: users who use software that needs to accept incoming connections on packages that no longer receive a public v4 IP
4: users who need public v4 IPs for services they are hosting and see the prices rise to reflect the market value of IP addresses.

Personally? (5, Funny)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41335405)

I'm going to wait it out and skip straight from IPv4 to IPv8... IPv6 could be the Windows Vista of the IP world.

that's like five better (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#41335463)

Wouldn't you rather wait for IPv11 ?

Re:Personally? (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41335485)

Why not just use IPv9

RFC 1606: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1606.txt [ietf.org]

Re:Personally? (1)

rvw (755107) | about 2 years ago | (#41336137)

Why not just use IPv9

RFC 1606: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1606.txt [ietf.org]

Oh no! Is the IETF on the same updating scheme as Mozilla?

Re:Personally? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335521)

Actually, that was IPv5... so you see, you're the guy who skipped windows xp, vista, and windows 7, jumping straight into the broken windows 8 era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv5 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Personally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335783)

Which reminds me, whatever happened to IPv1, IPv2 and IPv3?

Re:Personally? (2)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#41335829)

Windows 8 is not broken. It will work as designed.

Re:Personally? (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#41336489)

That's a non-sequitur.

"It works as designed" does not imply "It's not broken".

Re:Personally? (1)

no1nose (993082) | about 2 years ago | (#41336343)

I used to think they could pry XP Pro from my cold dead fingers, now it will be 7 Pro that I want to keep for the next 10 years. We are running 8 on some test machines in our Enterprise test lab and Yikes, not a good business/productivity environment!! (we are finding users lose track of what they are doing when the switch applications, and no Start Menu?) I will be holding onto my Dell 7 Pro install media for a long time.

Still not freaking out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335419)

So now we start reclaiming the blocks of 16 million addresses that have gone unused, right?

spammers (0)

prisma (1038806) | about 2 years ago | (#41335425)

If they could audit their ISPs, I wonder what fraction of their IP addresses would be found as being used by spammers and their bot nets. It'd be great if they could seize abused IP ranges back and turn them over to folks with more legitimate uses.

Re:spammers (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 2 years ago | (#41335491)

Knocking botnets off the Internet would be annoying for those poor folks who didn't realize their systems had been compromised.

Re:spammers (1)

prisma (1038806) | about 2 years ago | (#41335625)

About seizing IP ranges, I meant looking for entire chunks of IPs that may have been bought by a "business" or "ISP" and then converted wholly into a spam farm. From my point of view, sometimes it feels like there are armies being deliberately built out there. I agree about compromised individuals and don't think it would be practical to go about finding each and every one them, much less enforce any kind of ban.

Re:spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335659)

Too fucking bad. Why care about idiots that don't know how their equipment works?

Re:spammers (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41335715)

Annoying yes, but if that's what has to be done...

People need to exercise some responsibility in securing their PC. You can be ticketed for having a dangerous vehicle that does not conform to road safety standards.

Re:spammers (4, Interesting)

doshell (757915) | about 2 years ago | (#41335551)

Sigh. We've been over this countless times. Even if you managed to reclaim all IPv4 ranges that are not being completely used presently, you would buy yourself only a few more months (at current growth rates) until you ran out of addresses again.

I seriously have a hard time trying to understand why so many people on Slashdot seem to be militantly against IPv6. You'd expect more of an allegedly technologically literate audience.

Re:spammers (1)

prisma (1038806) | about 2 years ago | (#41335699)

I'm not at all against IPv6. My perspective is just one of speculative curiosity: If IPv4 addresses were used at 100% efficiency (with inefficiency being defined as malware/botnets/spammers) how much longer would they have?

A little extra time to shake out the bugs from any infrastructure upgrade seems couldn't hurt, too.

Re:spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335809)

I'm not at all against IPv6. My perspective is just one of speculative curiosity: If IPv4 addresses were used at 100% efficiency (with inefficiency being defined as malware/botnets/spammers) how much longer would they have?

The last estimate I saw: less than a year. (Don't have a citation link handy though.)

Re:spammers (2)

omglolbah (731566) | about 2 years ago | (#41335817)

The time wouldnt be used for that though, it would be used to delay the rollout of ipv6.

Just like every excuse out there has been used... sigh

Re:spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336001)

But as you approach "100% efficiency" many problems with IPv4 get worse: NATs or (ugh) double NATs tend to complicate things, and the routing gets ever more complicated when you have to direct ever smaller netblocks to different points in the network.

Re:spammers (2)

kasperd (592156) | about 2 years ago | (#41336425)

If IPv4 addresses were used at 100% efficiency

100% efficiency is unrealistic. Once the HD-ratio reaches 80-90% the administrative overhead and routing overhead becomes problematic. I think IPv4 by now has been pushed over 90%, and the problems are showing. With 32 bit addresses an HD ratio of 90% means we can effectively use about 29 bits. In terms of addresses, IPv4 has about 3.7 billion addresses (once you take into account, that some are reserved). Now raise that to the power of 0.9 to find out how many you can use at a 90% HD ratio. 3700000000^0.9=408678275. So just over 400 million devices at 90% efficiency.

There may be people who tell you, that 90% efficiency would mean 3700000000*0.9. Those who says that, do not understand the problems they are talking about. HD ratio indicates how efficiently the bits in the addresses are used and not the number of addresses themselves. And the HD ratio turns out to be a much better measure to predict what is feasible.

Re:spammers (2)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 2 years ago | (#41335939)

The problem is we have been hearing we only have a few months left for years now.

Re:spammers (4, Informative)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 2 years ago | (#41336433)

Bullshit. I have followed IPv4 exhaustion in detail for the last 5 years. The prediction was always that IPv4 will run out at the global level between 2010 and 2013 (it happened in February 2011), and run out at the regional level in the years after that (it happened in April 2011 in Asia-Pacific and today in Europe-Middle East). So no surprises at all. If you are a European ISP, and you stuck to the rules of RIPE NCC, you now have IPv4 stocks that should satisfy your growth needs for the next three months. After that, you cannot grow your network anymore without resorting to the mess that CGN is.

Re:spammers (3, Funny)

Nofsck Ingcloo (145724) | about 2 years ago | (#41336013)

I guess the reason I'm dragging my heels is my complete mystification and annoyance that the designers of IPV6 didn't do something sensible like make some small corner of the V6 address space map to the V4 address space. So instead of being simple and seamless, I have to spend some time fooling around with my equipemnt and software to work around that omission. A pox on the designer's heads.

Re:spammers (4, Informative)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 2 years ago | (#41336493)

Guess what, they did: ::FFFF:111.222.111.222 is IPv6 for 111.222.111.222. But you still need to "fool around" with equipment because there is no way that an IPv4-only device can address an IPv6 device.

Re:spammers (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about 2 years ago | (#41336467)

IPv6 is incredibly confusing. I know how to set up a subnet for 172.20.18.0/24. Subnetting DEAD:BEEF:FEED:BEAD::1/56 is nonsense.

Re:spammers (1)

ballpoint (192660) | about 2 years ago | (#41336519)

I'm 'against' IPv6 because it's a full bloat protocol rewrite instead of simple extension of IPv4. The latter would have been accepted and implemented much quicker, on a larger scale and at much less cost. In a way you could look at NAT as such an extension, one of its existential reasons being that IPv4 addresses always have been in scarce supply to anyone but the original colonizers of the void.

Yes, I know, there are other advantages advertised for IPv6. They must be really small given the lack of interest.

Re:spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335605)

Approximately none of them. Spammers do not act as local internet registries; most just rent their IPs from a spam-friendly hosting provider or local ISP.
Bot net clients are infected machines and bring their own IP from their legitimate owner.

Re:spammers (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41335685)

I doubt it'd help much.

Most spammers don't sit on a single range for a long time, it'd be easy as pie to block. Speaking with first hand experience they'll get some low end basic server/VPS, and multiple IPs across multiple ranges then spam as much as they can till they are caught by the DC or get the ranges blocked.

It's a big red flag when someone asks for a lot of IPs on a low end servers. Either they are a spammer or don't know what they are doing.

DC does not like it since you now have multiple ranges which are blocked by many ISPs and won't be usable by future clients, since there is often a good bit of red tape to get them unblocked and even then it's up to the ISPs discretion.

Revoke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335465)

I say we revoke all the IP's from China. They never use them for anything good.

R.I.P. RIPE (0)

Idou (572394) | about 2 years ago | (#41335475)

Sorry if you thought there would be something more substantial in the body of this post . . .

OOHHH NOOOOEEESSS!!!11!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335593)

The sky is falling! It's the end of the world! Your children are going to suffer! Buy gold and get a bunker! If we don't start using IPv6, people are going to die of first world problems!!!!

If you can't tell, I'm sick of the mismanagement of the IPv4 address space, please start using your brains. This is just as bad as seeing posts about that scam bitcoin.

Make an offer (1)

markdowling (448297) | about 2 years ago | (#41335697)

There are companies out there with IP allocations from the dawn of time they are not (or should not) be using since most clients don't need fully routed addresses. Time to set a market price on IPv4 addresses. At the right price we might throw one of our two class Cs in the pot - not much, but there's a lot more out there.

All cool sites are already running IPv6. (5, Informative)

Mikaelk (32020) | about 2 years ago | (#41335925)

Like youtube, google, facebook and slashdot.
ok, all except slashdot.

I have the solution (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41335931)

Party-line IP addresses [wikipedia.org]

Yeah, sure, sometimes you might be trying to access /., and end up at teletubbies.com, but, hey, recycling.

Why aren't we on IPv6 yet? (1, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#41336003)

Serious question. Why aren't we all on v6?

This is something the ISPs, the upstreams, well the big guys in general have to do. As an end user I couldn't care less. I don't know my IP address (yes I can look it up if really needed). I don't care what it is. I don't care if I'm on v4 or v5 or v6 or whatever. I just want an Internet connection. That's all. Just make sure my web sites resolve - that shouldn't be too hard either, I know there are v4-to-v6 and v.v. tricks.

As a savvy end user, for my home network, I will want to continue to use NAT or something equivalent. I don't want my printer, my desktop, my laptop and my phone that connect to the WiFi to have an externally approachable address. My router is what takes all the incoming connections and then passes on the few that are allowed. Just get me that Internet connection. Preferably in the form of a simple network cable that I can plug into my router, I'll build the network from there.

I don't care much if that incoming cable is using IPv4 or v6. The router takes care of that. OK mine is old, and will need replacement, that's a one time investment and I'm good for the next decade or so.

It's in the same light of my brand new TV (this week finally switched from an old CRT to a spanking new LED) that can receive digital signals. I basically don't care much whether I get an analog or digital signal, I just want to watch TV. Digital image is better, nice. Pretty newsreader is still pretty but now I see all the imperfections on her face. Bummer. Not exactly an improvement there.

Anyway back to IPv6. Why don't ISPs just switch over? Offer the option? Give new subscribers an IPv6 modem/router instead of an IPv4 modem/router, and so slowly move the subscriber base over? They tend to replace those devices every now and then anyway, so why aren't they replacing them with the new IP? It's using the same type of copper wire, doesn't it?

Re:Why aren't we on IPv6 yet? (3, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 2 years ago | (#41336249)

This is something the ISPs, the upstreams, well the big guys in general have to do. As an end user I couldn't care less.

As an end user you shouldn't have to care, but when the upstream guys haven't done their work and you can't access newpopularsoscialsite.com, which is IPv6 only, then you start getting annoyed and start trawling the net to see why things are broken. The problem is many of up the stream guys, at least in North America, have dropped the ball and aren't even offering options for techs who do care and are interested in being early adopters of native IPv6. Just don't get me started on some of the incompetent replies I have got from some ISPs.

As a savvy end user, for my home network, I will want to continue to use NAT or something equivalent. I don't want my printer, my desktop, my laptop and my phone that connect to the WiFi to have an externally approachable address.

If you configure your devices to only use link-local IPv6 addresses, then there is no reason they will be seen by the outside world. Even then, with a routable IPv6 address you can configure you firewall rules to only expose certain devices to the internet. In the IPv6 world the firewall will be your friend and I believe as it becomes a more important component people will work out ways of making it simpler to configure.

Re:Why aren't we on IPv6 yet? (2)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 2 years ago | (#41336337)

My ISP's done all the above (been using native IPv6 for >2 years), and you're right ... done properly it's transparent to the end user and everything just works as it always has. It was done as an opt-in trial for the first year or so (you just changed your PPP login details from user@isp.net to user@ipv6.isp.net). Then after ironing out any issues, they just turned it on for all new customers by default. The sky hasn't fallen in.

In fact I forget all about IPv6 most of the time, only to be occasionally reminded when I ping/tracert stuff:

C:\>ping www.google.com

Pinging www.google.com [2404:6800:4006:801::1012] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2404:6800:4006:801::1012: time=11ms
Reply from 2404:6800:4006:801::1012: time=11ms
Reply from 2404:6800:4006:801::1012: time=10ms
Reply from 2404:6800:4006:801::1012: time=10ms

Ping statistics for 2404:6800:4006:801::1012:
        Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
        Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 10ms

But yeah, my ISP is in the minority and like you I wonder - why is this the case?

Re:Why aren't we on IPv6 yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336413)

I would definitely want my printer, desktop, laptop and toaster to have a global IPv6 address!
A correctly configured firewall protects devices on your internal network from intrusion.

Device/OS issues (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41336517)

How many consumer devices a few years ago would have worked properly with a full switch to IPV6?

Even now, surely some stuff consumers still have and use will break - and that's why movement has been slow, because ISP's do not want a ton of support calls.

Canada will soon be on its own (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 2 years ago | (#41336109)

No Canadian ISP is live or in public trial of IPv6. Contacting most of them reveals that there is no knowledge of even field tests. At least in the USA Comcast has started providing IPv6. Here in Canada we are likely to be banging rocks when it comes to ISP innovation, when everyone has made their sites IPv6 accessible only.

Re:Canada will soon be on its own (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336393)

rubbish. teksavvy has rolled out full native IPv6 /48 to ALL users of its DSL network on world IPv6 day months ago.
teksavvy.com - probably available in your area if you care to support clueful ISPs.

Re:Canada will soon be on its own (1)

yabos (719499) | about 2 years ago | (#41336637)

No major ISP has IPv6 here. Teksavvy's is a beta still, you can request to join.

what do you mean, "run out of addresses?" (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41336157)

obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/865/ [xkcd.com]

Re:what do you mean, "run out of addresses?" (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 2 years ago | (#41336569)

That one [xkcd.com] must be more in-topic.

I have IPv4 space to spare. (1)

drwho (4190) | about 2 years ago | (#41336203)

If you have money, come talk to me, we'll make a deal. If you are a non-profit-org, you may attempt to show how worthwhile your cause is and why it needs a /24 or larger.

IPv6 September (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336247)

Look Out.

We don't need IPv6! (2)

Andrio (2580551) | about 2 years ago | (#41336301)

Having 4.8×10^28 IP addresses for each person is just plain superfluous. We have about 7 billion, and IPv4 gives us some 4.3 billion IP addresses. So, the solution is obvious. We just need to double the IPs of IPv4, and we'll have everyone covered. We can do that by simply creating a second internet.

Problem solved.

Re:We don't need IPv6! (1)

Andrio (2580551) | about 2 years ago | (#41336307)

4.8x10^28
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...