Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Whatever Happened To the IPv4 Address Crisis?

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the still-working dept.

The Internet 574

alphadogg writes "In February 2011, the global Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) allocated the last blocks of IPv4 address space to the five regional Internet registries. At the time, experts warned that within months all available IPv4 addresses in the world would be distributed to ISPs. Soon after that, unless everyone upgraded to IPv6, the world would be facing a crisis that would hamper Internet connectivity for everyone. That crisis would be exacerbated by the skyrocketing demand for IP addresses due to a variety of factors: the Internet of Things (refrigerators needing their own IP address); wearables (watches and glasses demanding connectivity); BYOD (the explosion of mobile devices allowed to connect to the corporate network); and the increase in smartphone use in developing countries. So, here we are three years later and the American Registry for Internet Numbers is still doling out IPv4 addresses in the United States and Canada. Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?"

cancel ×

574 comments

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

Chicken little (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266847)

It was never a crisis to begin with? This is why you don't listen to chicken littles.

the skynet is falling the skynet is falling (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266913)

had to say that

Re:Chicken little (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267147)

Christ you're an idiot, and so are the people who modded this up.

Re:Chicken little (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267241)

You are the idiot. We have been "two years from running out of IP addresses" since 1992.

One day they will be correct. And no one will believe them. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Chicken little (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267415)

You can't get new IPv4 addresses in Europe or Asia. End users are already on DS-lite, with IPv6 for their only public address. You can not initiate a connection to millions of Europeans and Asians if you don't use IPv6. Not soon, now.

Re:Chicken little (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267303)

I'm an idiot for what? Not believing the doomsday predictions about IPv4 that have never materialized in any of the timelines the chicken littles claimed?

Re:Chicken little (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267359)

this is not entirely accurate. the address crises was real until network address translation and protocols like ipsec and application proxying for poorly implemented protocols such as SIP and FTP (some engineers are just lame) advanced to the point where we don't need IPv6. The real chicken-littles were the incompetent engineers and scientists that implemented garbage. There are some good engineers that implemented ugly work-arounds and have reduced the usage of things like FTP to compensate for their incompetence (more than one socket on a connection oriented protocol? SHAME! SHAME!).

NAT (5, Interesting)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 6 months ago | (#46266871)

While phones use Internet connectivity, they usually connect through the carrier infrastructure which may only allocate a few (or even 1) IPv4 addresses, thanks to NAT.

Re:NAT (5, Interesting)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#46266925)

Yup. NAT isn't really too troublesome on phones since they rarely run servers, are usually connecting to cloud-based services, and they move around so much that they'd probably have an IP change every 10 minutes if you handled them like a traditional routable IP.

If I were using cellular service as my actual home ISP it would drive me nuts, though.

IPv6 is needed more than it ever was. We just haven't reached the end of v4 yet.

Re:NAT (5, Funny)

aurizon (122550) | about 6 months ago | (#46267055)

We need to get the ground work done so that IPv8 can be introduced smoothly - the galaxy demands to be properly served...

The usual (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266875)

I am still panicking, yoou insensitive clod.

By all Means then (0, Troll)

OS24Ever (245667) | about 6 months ago | (#46266887)

Let's shitcan IPV6 right now, who needs it, because clearly because some people were concerned it's a reason to ignore it all now and keep using ipv4

Re:By all Means then (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 6 months ago | (#46266997)

Let's shitcan IPV6 right now, who needs it, because clearly because some people were concerned it's a reason to ignore it all now and keep using ipv4

Your analogy fails, because IPv6 brings extra functionality, including routing advantages. It's not just an attempt at dumbing down for MBAs and the unwashed masses.

Re:By all Means then (2, Funny)

OS24Ever (245667) | about 6 months ago | (#46267029)

That wasn't an analogy. That was sarcasm.

Probably the home router... (4, Insightful)

neilo_1701D (2765337) | about 6 months ago | (#46266903)

When that particular comment was made, the ubiquity of the home router dolling out DHCP addresses probably wasn't considered. Nowadays, you only need one IP address for your home and let the router sort it out.

There's still a problem, but people seem to prefer to adapt and come up with (very) clever workarounds rather than get some new solution shoved down their throat that renders existing equipment obsolete for no good reason.

Re:Probably the home router... (0)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 6 months ago | (#46266947)

When that particular comment was made, the ubiquity of the home router dolling out DHCP addresses probably wasn't considered. Nowadays, you only need one IP address for your home and let the router sort it out.

There's still a problem, but people seem to prefer to adapt and come up with (very) clever workarounds rather than get some new solution shoved down their throat that renders existing equipment obsolete for no good reason.

Not only that but the carriers are also doing NAT so that home router has an RFC1918 address. And the load on the 'carrier grade NAT' is so high that they load balance across several NAT routers. So when you go to a website each link you click might appear to come from a different IP address. Good luck with web apps that use IP based sessions.

Re:Probably the home router... (4, Informative)

sribe (304414) | about 6 months ago | (#46267035)

Good luck with web apps that use IP based sessions.

Are you kidding me??? That stopped being even remote practical about 20 years ago.

Re:Probably the home router... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267217)

Being "not pratical" doesn't mean shit to some service providers.

Re:Probably the home router... (2)

exabrial (818005) | about 6 months ago | (#46267159)

If you're using IP based sessions you're a moron. Only the RIAA/MPAA makes that argument.

Re:Probably the home router... (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 6 months ago | (#46267011)

How does it even work any other way?

Are you/the article saying that it is possible to have a single connection to your ISP, but for every computer, fridge, toaster, TV, etc. to have its own global IP address?

Your ISP can give you a block of dynamic/static IP addresses, which your router assigns instead of 192.168.1.X?

Re:Probably the home router... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267087)

Yes. Instead of a home router, you get a switch connected to the ISP network.

Re:Probably the home router... (4, Interesting)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 6 months ago | (#46267187)

Are you/the article saying that it is possible to have a single connection to your ISP, but for every computer, fridge, toaster, TV, etc. to have its own global IP address?

Yes, that is exactly how IPv6 is supposed to work.

Your ISP can give you a block of dynamic/static IP addresses, which your router assigns instead of 192.168.1.X?

Possibly, but not necessarily even that. You could be set up to simply automatically generate IPv6 addresses from your MACs, and the ISP doesn't even explicitly grant you an address block.

Re:Probably the home router... (4, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 6 months ago | (#46267455)

As it stands, your carier does NAT themselves and gives your router one IP address, typically in the 10.0.0.0/8 address space. Your home router then does another layouer of NAT, and gives internal devices their own IP address range in the 1902.168.1.0/16 address space. The advantagie is that one can support a _tremendous_ backend infrastructure without public IP addresses. This is also a tremendous security advantage: it reduces the exposed attack surface for script kiddies and casual network scanners to attack your home devices, they have to successfully gain control of the router or another device inside your network to pass along their attack.

The disadvantage, which dismays some people, is that NAT channels _publication_ of services through those NAT enabled routers or through externally hosted web space. It effectively makes the allocation of IP addresses and ports for exposed services require more thought, and allows easier throttling or monitoring of traffic at those NAT routers. I've found it to be a tremendous security and network management improvement: it makes firewall and routing design _much_ more stable and helps prevent people from running dangerous, unauthorized services from office networks, such as running public NFS servers without telling anyone aware of the security implications.

Re:Probably the home router... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267041)

They aren't "clever work around", they're horrible bandaids with no standards and break things. Yes, many of these "fixes" work 80% of the time, but we want something that works 100% of the time. NO CORNER CASES!

Re:Probably the home router... (3, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 6 months ago | (#46267207)

Being horrified by NAT is all well and good, but the fact is, ISPs look at the horrible bandaids that work 80% of the time and say, "Good enough. Now I don't have to rebuild my entire infrastructure for IPv6." You may want something that works 100% of the time, but the people who own the equipment don't want to *pay* for something that works 100% of the time.

Re:Probably the home router... (-1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 6 months ago | (#46267437)

NO grownups who work at proper telcos dont want to completely replace an entire infrastructure because the ivory tower idiots that designed ipv6 dint consider (at all) how to migrate from ipv4 to ipv6

Re:Probably the home router... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267405)

Nowadays, you only need one IP address for your home and let the router sort it out.

How has this changed in the last two years since the comment was made? I don't think home routers handling DHCP was that recent of an implementation and was already ubiquitous when the comment was made. NAT at home has its own share of problems that, while usually easily solvable with access to the home router, shouldn't need to bother wasting any amount of time with in the first place. NAT at higher levels done at the ISP level gets uglier, although it will still be enough for many people and make it look like the internet still works just fine.

IP exhaustion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267447)

IP exhaustion is like air pollution. Or slowly heating a frog in water. Everyone says it is "not a problem" until the shit hits the fan.

IPv4 will keep puttering along. You can't get IPv4 addresses easily anymore for you VMs on colo servers. 15 years ago, $5/mo got me a /24. Today, I can get a single IP for that much. Routing tables are now insanely complex due to these retarded policies. But if you don't see it, it can't be a problem. Right?

Re:Probably the home router... (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 months ago | (#46267465)

When that particular comment was made, the ubiquity of the home router dolling out DHCP addresses probably wasn't considered.

The report was in Feb 2011. Home routers have been doing this for 10 years. The reality is that home routers doing this is actually part of the problem. It's a real hassle for game developers, file sharers, Tor users, media servers, ...

NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266905)

NAT became widespread, and the utopia of each device having its own IP address died.
Simple things are now way more complicated than they need to be, but at least we didn't have to change to IPv6

AMEN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266969)

AMEN!!!!

CGN, perhaps? (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about 6 months ago | (#46266931)

Just a guess, but maybe widespread adoption of Carrier Grade NAT [wikipedia.org] might have given IPv4 a bit of a longer shelf life. It's either that or the kind of fun and games that I once read that Hutchison (Orange) was doing on their mobile network, with no less than seven separate instances of the 10/8 network being juggled around at once.

Still, even ARIN is now starting to tighten the screws on the size of netblocks they are assigning out, so I suspect providers are being a lot more careful about how they subnet and assign out IP addresses than they used to be. I suspect that just moving stuff like DB servers and other backend infrastructure onto private IP space instead of just dumping them in the DMZ for convenience has helped a bit too, not too mention being a better security practice.

Re:CGN, perhaps? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 6 months ago | (#46267311)

This question might seem obvious, but..

Why is carrier grade NAT a superior solution from an economic sense compared to IPv6? I mean, doesn't it effectively add bits to the address space, only in a more complicated way? I'd think that it should be more expensive to implement than just straight increasing the address size.

If IPv6 requires more resources to implement than the current solutions involving NAT, maybe it should be scrapped in favor of another standard that can be implemented with existing resources, or at least with fewer additional resources than NAT requires.

10 years (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46266937)

Even through all addresses have been given out, there's still so much slack to shuffle things around in the IPv4 space. We will still go another good 10 years before moving into IPv6 in a large scale.

Re:10 years (4, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46267023)

Even through all addresses have been given out

They haven't:

the American Registry for Internet Numbers is still doling out IPv4 addresses

ARIN currently has “approximately 24 million IPv4 addresses in the available pool for the region,” according to President and CEO John Curran.

Re:10 years (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46267213)

That's odd. I could have sworn that a couple years ago it was reported that the final bunch was handed out somewhere in Asia.

Re:10 years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267289)

ICANN allocated the final blocks to the regional registries in a public ceremony three years ago. APNIC and RIPE are now down to the last /8 each, which is reserved for transitioning mechanisms. That means you can't get new IPv4 address space in Europe or Asia except for use in some kind of NAT scheme. ARIN and LACNIC (North and South America) will be down to the last /8 in a few months. Africa's address space consumption has increased, so they will not be too far behind.

Only if you can't get addresses (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266939)

It's only a crisis if it affects you. (sic)

That's basically what is happening, a giant stand off between the access networks and the hosting providers looking who will blink first.

From then end user perspective, you should see what happens to Skype and games when both end-users are behind a double NAT, it's hilarious. But most people seem to cope just fine.

For the hosting providers then fun really starts when you can't get a public IPv4 for your new webserver, that'll be fun. There's no NAT workaround for that, some european hosting providers are already feeling the crunch in their IPv4 blocks, you can only host so many servers. So what can you do? Jack up the prices ofcourse, isn't the free market wonderful!

If you are a business in the EMEA and you still want or need your own PI space for BGP, tough cookies, you can't get it anymore.

Re:Only if you can't get addresses (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267149)

Major European end user networks have already switched to dual-stack lite, i.e. public IPv6 address plus CG NAT IPv4 address. Only business clients still get public IPv4 addresses. I expect IPv4 addresses to move from user networks to hosting networks (at a price, if they're not the same company).

Re:Only if you can't get addresses (4, Interesting)

C3ntaur (642283) | about 6 months ago | (#46267395)

For the hosting providers then fun really starts when you can't get a public IPv4 for your new webserver, that'll be fun. There's no NAT workaround for that, some european hosting providers are already feeling the crunch in their IPv4 blocks, you can only host so many servers. So what can you do? Jack up the prices ofcourse, isn't the free market wonderful!

This. This is why IPv4 will stick around for decades to come. There is too much profit potential in it, and IPv6 costs too much money to implement.

I'm waiting for (4, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#46266943)

IPv8.1

Re:I'm waiting for (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#46267333)

I'm pretty sure you need the IPv7 experimental version first.

My two cents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266951)

Newer devices should be IPv6 enabled (and also IPv4 as backup). And hopefully IPv4 and IPv6 can coexist as long as necessary while legacy machines, ones which cannot be upgraded, slowly fade away.

noone expects..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46266973)

It's Easy,
The big companies which control the infrastructure, ...
the networks that bind all of our nations together on the internet, ... have decided to go their own way,
and now,

everyone is now locked into their own private ipv4 address space, which still connects with the rest of the internet, though, when you're doing something silly, you're just being an ass on yourself.

Oh, and there is nothing you can do about it, unless you're willing to become a martyr, and willing to take several "innocent" people down, together with the corrupt heads of the nation you're living in.

Watch out, the head figures are just decoy's, they do wield some power, yet they're not the ones who actually get things done.

[wdw]

RFC 1918 (2)

toupsie (88295) | about 6 months ago | (#46266975)

I guess enough people finally got around to reading it.

So you think that the big IP range holders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267403)

are giving up their ranges and going private?

They probably looked at the last mile problems (3, Interesting)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#46266991)

and figured out they better find a better solution than ipv6. There is too much ipv4 only hardware out there to abandon it all. It would just be insane.

Arin is alone (2)

pcjunky (517872) | about 6 months ago | (#46267001)

While things have slowed down here the other regional IP registars have run out. APNIC and RIPE both have no IP addresses left. Arin has only about 1.4 /8's left.

Re:Arin is alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267171)

Put your seats in the upright position and brace for impact: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/plotend.png [potaroo.net]

IPv6 has this tiny problem (2)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | about 6 months ago | (#46267033)

"Hey Joe, what's your IP address?"
"Oh, let me see... it's fe80:0:0:0:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf"

Holy crap that's long. The second IP addresses become this difficult to exchange verbally, we're going to stop referring to them altogether.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 6 months ago | (#46267097)

That was the point of having DNS in the first place. Four octets just weren't bad enough.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 6 months ago | (#46267129)

I'll point out that the OP asked for an IP address, not a hostname.

While indeed this is the problem DNS addresses, many development and internal networks are not running DNS for a variety of reasons.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

Sique (173459) | about 6 months ago | (#46267229)

Most of the reasons being to lazy to roll out DNS for all IP addresses, even internal ones and keeping track of changes. As I said: IPv4-addresses were still memorizable, thus many people kept using them directly.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

smash (1351) | about 6 months ago | (#46267475)

Then give them statics, like: 2001:44B8:6116:5AFF::1 (my router).

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267113)

But since its routable, and not NAT, just give them your device name.
DeviceName.myisp.com

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (2)

Imagix (695350) | about 6 months ago | (#46267117)

There's this really interesting service out there that converts from a human-friendly (well, friendlier anyway) form to the IP address. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called DNS. (and BTW, you just quoted a link-local IPv6 address... so the guy who wants to talk to Joe probably can't use it anyway...)

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (2)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | about 6 months ago | (#46267221)

So my parents have to learn how to configure a DNS in order for me to troubleshoot their networking problems over the phone? :)

On a more serious note, I don't see the possibility of getting non-techies to configure DNS entries for their computer.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267353)

No, the ISP does it by MAC address.
Tech support gets easier, since you can reach their machine by its IP address, and it isn't hidden behind two layers of NAT and a firewall.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (4, Insightful)

infogulch (1838658) | about 6 months ago | (#46267133)

Fixed:

"Hey Joe, what's your IP address?"
"I don't have one, I'm behind a NAT and firewall that I don't control."

Of the two problems, I find yours the lesser of two evils.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

trparky (846769) | about 6 months ago | (#46267153)

Actually that would be fe80::200:f8ff:fe21:67cf. You can drop the three zeros after fe80 and replace it with a double colon.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | about 6 months ago | (#46267195)

I know, but human beings have a problem counting consecutive characters. Two is okay. As the number increases, so do the typos.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

eedwardsjr (1327857) | about 6 months ago | (#46267295)

I doubt anyone cares, but this is the RFC for IP6's architecture. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc35... [ietf.org]

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46267275)

"Hey Joe, what's your IP address?" "Oh, let me see... it's fe80:0:0:0:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf"

Holy crap that's long. The second IP addresses become this difficult to exchange verbally, we're going to stop referring to them altogether.

I find that very annoying too. Why didn't they make it look like IPv4 but with just one extra value, i.e. 123.123.123.123.123. Much more user-friendly.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267321)

I agree. I think IP6 is a bad standard from a human usability point of view. It needs an IP6 /etc/hosts-prefix to simplify this hexadecimal gibberish. For example,
[broadbandaddress]:33.103.201 where broadband is looked up in a relatively standardized /etc/hosts-prefix file. Add in the fact that IP6 calls to do away with NATs and this is what makes for bad standard.

Re:IPv6 has this tiny problem (1)

smash (1351) | about 6 months ago | (#46267457)

You're doing it wrong. Use DNS.

When you migrated to IPV6, I re-used your IPV4's. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267075)

1. Most businesses can't come up with a business case to "complicate all the things" and attain zero ROI, thus barely anybody is migrating.
2. When some do migrate to IPV6, that releases IPV4 addresses, thus IPV4 will be nearly full for a very long time.
3. Let's face it, there is no killer app equivalent in IPV6. Nearly everything that it offers, IPV4 can do with addons (i.e. NAT, DHCP, etc)
4. IPV6 is a solution to a problem that is too small/insignificant at this time... the problem is growing to be sure, but it won't cause any overnight migration. For *F* sakes, most non-IT businesses still use fax machines!

Re: When you migrated to IPV6, I re-used your IPV4 (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 6 months ago | (#46267233)

Businesses that migrate to IPv6 don't drop their IPv4 addresses. They still need them to talk to legacy clients.

I've migrated to IPv6 at home but I still have an additional IPv4 addresses internally and externally for talking to IPv4 servers and devices.

Bad summary (4, Informative)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 6 months ago | (#46267081)

Unsurprisingly, address exhaustion still going on. APNIC and RIPE are down to their last /8 and are now handing out addresses as slowly as they can. ARIN and LACNIC will reach their last /8 this year. AFRINIC won't run out for years, so I suspect their new infrastructure will be built on IPv6. Here's the relevant data. [potaroo.net]

There's a finite number of addresses, guys. They're not going to magically stop running out.

ISPs taking IPs back from customers (4, Informative)

kasperd (592156) | about 6 months ago | (#46267083)

Less than two months after RIPE introduced rationing of IPv4 addresses, I one day found my internet connectivity to be totally broken. Turns out the ISP had turned on NAT in my modem (without telling me about it beforehand). They did have a self service page where I could turn NAT off again and get functional internet connectivity again. However some of my devices no longer received any reply from the DHCP server.

I called their support, who said the lack of reply from their DHCP server was due to the network interface on my computer being defective (which was obviously a lie). When I pointed out that their conclusion was directly contradicting the symptoms I had already explained them about, they just hanged up.

Calling their support one more time, I was able to get to a supporter who knew what was going on, and didn't just invent a lie. It turns out they had run out of IPv4 addresses, and were now enforcing a maximum of two devices online per customer regardless of what limit had been in effect previously.

A few days later I called them again asking for native IPv6, which I considered only fair, given that they had taken away some of the IPv4 addresses, which I were using. They promised me native IPv6 before the end of the year. That was in 2012, they still haven't delivered.

Other ISPs are putting all new customers behind CGN unless they pay an extra fee for a static IP address. You'd think they'd give you native IPv6 along with that. But alas, according to the majority of ISPs, there is no shortage of IPv4 addresses in this country, so nobody needs IPv6. And since nobody is buying IPv6 connectivity, the ISPs will not offer it (completely ignoring the fact, that the reason nobody is buying IPv6 connectivity is that the ISPs themselves aren't offering it in the first place).

From what I am told, native IPv6 plus CGN for IPv4 is already fairly common in Germany, but that's not enough to make me want to move across the border. I have yet to hear about ISPs putting customers who previously had a public IPv4 address behind NAT, but I would not be surprised if it happened.

IPv6 usage IS increasing (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 6 months ago | (#46267099)

Google's statistics of IPv6 usage [google.com] show a seemingly exponential increase, which is now up to 3%. It could be 10%, 20%, or 50% in 10 years' time. Countries like mine (the UK) need to wake the fuck up and start having major ISPs offer IPv6. It really sucks that so few do.

Comcast and ipv6 (2)

weave (48069) | about 6 months ago | (#46267101)

Comcast brags (http://comcast6.net) that they are the largest ISP that supports ipv6. Oh wow, cool. I have a new modem that supports it as well as a home router.

So I go to figure out how to do it and find that they are only assigning /128s (single IPs) to only certain markets.

Who has a single computer hooked up to the Internet at home and nothing else?

No wonder it's not going anywhere. Even early-adopters can't get on easily without tunneling or other hack.

Re:Comcast and ipv6 (3, Interesting)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about 6 months ago | (#46267265)

I'm on Comcast, and I'm getting a /60 from them.

Your WAN interface might be on a /128, and that is fine. You need to make sure your gear is telling Comcast what size of prefix you want delegated to your router.

Of course, this varies by market, so it might really not be there yet, but read up on prefix delegation & make sure you've got your end setup correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

Also, don't trust the tech support with this. They are clueless. According to them, IPv6 isn't available in my market.

Re:Comcast and ipv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267327)

Why would they do that in certain markets? They gave me a /64

Re:Comcast and ipv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267377)

Weird. For the markets I've seen that they support IPv6 from the CMTS, they were issuing /64's initially, but I've seen /60 and /56 allocations.

The bad part is trying to get it to work. The NetGear modems have some buggy software (even for IPv4), but it's a pain trying to get a stable modem and stable pfSense install to route and firewall properly for IPv6.

Re:Comcast and ipv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267463)

They're probably testing the waters for a common IPv4 & IPv6 NAT solution. After all, even if they don't _need_ to limit connectivity to IPv6 subscribers, big ISP and big content are always looking for ways to make the consumer internet more like cable tv (your ToS probably already forbids running servers, I presume?)..

useless summary. (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about 6 months ago | (#46267115)

Dear Mother of the First Transistor and all that's holy, would it be too much to write a summary that actually summarizes -- "Remember the IPv4 crisis? It's still a problem, and we're going to run into trouble sometime this year." It's only a matter of time before tabloid-grade link baiting pervades every area of writing -- imagine the joy of reading summaries of scientific articles that conclude with, "Is there a statistically significant likelihood that your wife secretly prefers canoodling with carpenters rather than network engineers? Click HERE to find out."

Re:useless summary. (1)

epine (68316) | about 6 months ago | (#46267189)

would it be too much to write a summary that actually summarizes

I've been complaining about this regularly in recent months. Far bigger issue than beta that so much content isn't nerdworthy.

IPv4 addresses are like arctic ice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267119)

they should be gone by 2011, except there is still plenty of them...

Now, despite what many people are saying, there is no real proof of antropologic causes of IPv4 address disappearance. As far as we know, for majority of time during Earth history, there were NO IPv4 addresses available, so current situation is just returning to baseline, rather than some exceptional disaster.

And if it means that some small villages in 3rd world countries won't have ip addresses in future... who cares. They will be probably flooded by water melted from artic ice anyway...

NAT = communism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267123)

NAT means people are giving themselves IP addresses and are sharing IP address space.
This is communism in it's purest form, and it has to stop.

Wolf! (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 6 months ago | (#46267135)

The IPv4 crisis was around when I got into IT back in the early 90s. So thats...over 20 years? That can't be right because, counting forward from...D'oh!

Get off my lawn!

Re:Wolf! (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 6 months ago | (#46267459)

Mid 80's for me thats pre the move to CIDR

The real crisis is the routing table size problem (3, Interesting)

exabrial (818005) | about 6 months ago | (#46267143)

Truth is NAT works just fine for the vast majority of cases, and makes a layered (IE not-eggs-all-in-one-basket) approach to security much simpler.


The real problem is routing table size with BGP. As we continue to divide the internet into smaller routable blocks, this is requiring an exponential amount of memory in BGP routers. Currently, the global BGP table requires around 256mb of RAM. IPv6 makes this problem 4 times worse.


IPv6 is a failure, we don't actually _need_ everything to have a publicly routable address. There were only two real problems with IPv4: wasted space on legacy headers nobody uses, and NAT traversal. IETF thumbed their noses as NAT (not-invented-here syndrome) and instead of solving real problems using a pave-the-cowpaths-approach, they opted to design something that nobody has a real use for.

Anyway, I'm hoping a set of brilliant engineers comes forward to invent IPv5, where we still use 32 bit public address to be backward compatible with today's routing equipment, but uses some brilliant hack re-using unused IPv4 headers to allow direct address through a NAT.

Flame away.

Re:The real crisis is the routing table size probl (5, Informative)

Typical Slashdotter (2848579) | about 6 months ago | (#46267291)

IPv6 is designed with such a large address space specifically to make BGP tables smaller. One of the factors causing IPv4 tables to grow is that, since addresses are scarce, people are getting clever with how they allocate blocks, divvying things up very finely so as not to waste. Since BGP entries are by block, this creates many blocks that need routing. The IPv6 designers went with 128 bits of address not because they think they need room for 2^128 hosts, but because there will be enough room to divide blocks hierarchically and logically, "wasting" addresses all along the way. This will allow global routing tables to more accurately reflect the structure there is between ISPs, shrinking their size.

Re:The real crisis is the routing table size probl (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 months ago | (#46267331)

Currently, the global BGP table requires around 256mb of RAM. IPv6 makes this problem 4 times worse.

So, routers running BGP need 1GB* of RAM to support IPv6? Considering that my phone has twice that much memory, it doesn't seem like that big a problem....

(* I assume by "256mb" you meant 256 megabytes, not millibits.)

It is just costing us $$$ at this point (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267145)

At work we wanted to set up some VPNs with a cloud provider but our ISP doesn't want to give us the IPs so we had to forgo the VPN and instead lease a line for $5000 a month + we'll end up with dev and production envirnments that don't match which will probably hit us as some downtime in the future (we're just using OpenVPN in dev which doesn't require an IPv4).

So in the case of my team of eight workers the IPv4 crisis is costing $5000/mo + countless meetings and endless paperwork. Not a showstopper, but enough that I'm not yelling "What Crisis?!" from the rooftops.

What happened? (2, Insightful)

GT66 (2574287) | about 6 months ago | (#46267157)

The human tendency for hyperbole happened. It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics. We just love the drama of a crisis. Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction. Talk about a drama queen. [br] [br] So, as it turned out, despite seemingly needing more than billions of IP addresses and IPv4 only supplying a few billion in totality, what the world really needed was just a few million IPv4 addresses that could provide "outside" initiated connectivity into the host. ie, servers. For all the rest, outbound connectivity could be supplied by some smaller proportion of addresses using NAT and clever work around services and many systems required even less than that needing only local area connectivity and allowing IPv4 to be reused over and over. [br] [br] So, the need for IPv6 RIGHT NOW OR THE END WILL CONSUME US! was driven largely by hyperbole and the reality that IPv4 can and will continue to serve our purpose is tempered by the other human traits of conservation and ingenuity. [br] Yes, the transition to IPv6 is inevitable and necessary however, the consumption of IPv4 will not be no more a sudden catastrophic event event any more than John Kerry's belief that climate change is a weapon of mass destruction. It just never happens that way.

Re:What happened? (0)

mi (197448) | about 6 months ago | (#46267407)

The human tendency for hyperbole happened. It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics. We just love the drama of a crisis. Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction.

We've also been "10 years away from running out of oil" — for the last 30 (if not 40) years...

Reusing ranges (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#46267215)

A lot of the lower /8 ranges [wikipedia.org] , that were assigned to companies and organizations(some of them that don't exist anymore) got reused to make ipv4 last a little longer. They will stil

Also don't help a lot that companies and ISPs may still be deploying hardware/software that is not ipv6 capable, replacing legacy systems is one the things that slows down adoption.

ipv6 is deployex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267219)

All new anroid phones from verizon and t-mobile us have ipv6. I also think comcast is mostly deployed.

Nothing happened (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267223)

Nothing happened.
It's an ongoign disaster that will get more and more of a problem as time goes on and it gets harder and harder to get IP addresses.

The real truth? (0)

Shaman (1148) | about 6 months ago | (#46267245)

Supporting IPv6 is a giant, ugly, expensive, network-rocking hairball for ISPs that virtually no amount of throat-clearing will dislodge. It's ugly to work with in many ways, people make demands of it that cost the ISPs time and money and aggravation to support. It requires forklift upgrades of virtually all the really expensive hardware that ISPs have in their data centers and elsewhere. Much hardware currently in use still doesn't support IPv6 (think virtually all wireless network hardware sold today) and everything needs to if you're going to make a smooth conversion - which is impossible anyway.

IPv6 from an ISP standpoint is the boogey man.

Re:The real truth? (1)

smash (1351) | about 6 months ago | (#46267389)

Bullshit. My ISP has been IPvt6 enabled for 5+ years now, and if you're running networking equipment more than 5-10 years, you're doing it wrong. I use IPv6 over wireless at home and at work. IPv6 is only a bogey man because of the pissing and moaning people are doing about it, rather than pulling their fucking finger out and getting on with it.

The US has nothing to worry about but... (5, Informative)

trparky (846769) | about 6 months ago | (#46267251)

The United States has enough IP addresses in our pool to carry us through to the end of say... 2018. If current growth of the Internet continues we will still have enough IP addresses in our pool, we'll just have to knock a year or two off that projection. Say, may 2017 or half way through 2016. The United States has more than enough IP addresses to keep us going for some time.

Europe and other parts of the world is a totally different story. When the Internet was created and we started handing out the IP addresses we were quite stingy when giving them to other parts of the world. The United States is one of the biggest hoarders of IP addresses in the IPv4 world while Europe and the rest of the world got relatively few IP addresses with compared to how many the US holds. There's where we are seeing the problem.

Europe has the issue, Europe has no choice in the matter; they have to move to IPv6 or their side of the Internet is pretty much crippled. So unless we all implement 6to4 to allow United States Internet users to connect to European web site (that's fugly) or finally get on the bandwagon in converting to IPv6 in the US, there will eventually be two Internets; a US and a European Internet with IPv4 and IPv6 being the limiting factor.

No atom left behind (1)

PackMan97 (244419) | about 6 months ago | (#46267263)

Somewhere out there is an atom without it's own IP address because we haven't fully rolled out IPv6! I demand no atom be left behind.

Already on IPv6 (2)

TyFoN (12980) | about 6 months ago | (#46267347)

My fiber ISP provides 6rd connectivity with a /62 prefix address space, and will bump it to /54 when they implement dual-stack on all systems.
There are still legacy routers on the system apparently.

However tomato on my rt-n66u handles the 6rd just fine.

A lot of systems are on ipv6 already, and I think I have around 50/50 ipv6 and ipv4 traffic now. There is no real difference in use for a regular user. Even all the phones, tables and the chromecast use it without me having to do anything except connecting the router.

I still have a regular fixed ip for ipv4, but all my devices are behind nat.

Never was a *crisis* (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46267351)

Just an irritant, rendered negligible due to technologies like NAT, since most devices don't need to be accessible from the outside.

I know the answer to this one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267361)

Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

Answer: No.

we started rolling IPv6. (1)

smash (1351) | about 6 months ago | (#46267369)

Much of China is already on IPv6 (they only got a tiny ipv4 allocation for their huge population), I myself have dual-stack here in Australia, and have since 2010. It's been available since about 2007 from memory.

While the peanut gallery are pissing and moaning about it, others are actually running it, in production.

It's there, just wait and see (4, Insightful)

Morgor (542294) | about 6 months ago | (#46267413)

In short, it's just too early to tell. Just because the RIRs ran out of addresses, it doesn't mean that the LIRs have yet (the ISPs).

Based on my experience as a network engineer at an ISP, the following is happening already:

Small ISPs and ISPs that have not been in the business for a long time* have either run out or are on the verge of doing so. They are doing the following:

  * Purchasing legacy IPv4 addresses from enterprises with /16 networks from the old days where available.
  * Deploying CGN-like solutions for their end-customers if their end-customers are residential users.

Larger ISPs and older ISPs with allocations from ye old pre-RIR days continue to hold addresses and are often able to free large quantities of addresses from old deployments. Mind you, a lot of public IPv4 space have been "wasted" on infrastructure addressing, and management of devices that were not even connected to the internet. Devices such as modems, DSLAMs, CPEs and similar.

One could easily speculate that the business of ISPs will be severely affected in the future, as customers will go to the old providers that have plenty of v4-space available at the cost of newer players who followed the RIR regulations of only applying for the address space they needed based on relative short-term predictions.

If you are a registered LIR you will see a flood of SPAM from so-called IP brokers who are trying to purchase unused IPv4 space in hope of selling this to LIRs in need. That market will probably become quite desperate in the coming years.

Oh, and by the way, I see no evidence that IPv6 deployment is taking any noticeable speed.

*) Long as in they were in the game when classfull allocations were made.

Privacy Benefits to NAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46267453)

Aren't there privacy benefits to going through multiple layers of NAT, home and carrier, as opposed to being a unique and therefore trackable address to websites and other services? They can try things like cookies or browser fingerprinting sure, but having one more tool in the privacy toolbox isn't necessarily a bad thing is it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>