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!

ARIN Is Down To the Last /8 of IPv4 Addresses

Unknown Lamer posted about 6 months ago | from the end-times dept.

The Internet 306

An anonymous reader writes "On 3 February 2011, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) issued the remaining five /8 address blocks, each containing 16.7 million addresses, in the global free pool equally to the five RIRs, and as such ARIN is no longer able to receive additional IPv4 resources from the IANA. After yesterday's large allocation (104.64.0.0/10) to Akamai, the address pool remaining to be assigned by ARIN is now down to the last /8. This triggers stricter allocation rules and marks the end of general availability of new IPv4 addresses in North America. ARIN thus follows the RIRs of Asia, Europe and South America into the final phase of IPv4 depletion."

cancel ×

306 comments

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

About time! (4, Funny)

drew_92123 (213321) | about 6 months ago | (#46823473)

They've been talking about this day for what seems like an eternity... Finally, we can start complaining about something else!

Re:About time! (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#46823653)

Yeah, now we can start complaining about how we can't run servers anymore for actual lack of IP addresses.

Re:About time! (5, Informative)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46823719)

Nah.

ISPs will just use more carrier grade NAT to free up IPs, maybe charge a little extra if you want your own IP outside of NAT to run game servers or skype or whatever (a relatively small group). Should hold of IPv6 for another 10 years or so.

Re:About time! (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46823737)

* hold off

Re:About time! (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#46823963)

And hopefully more large companies and organizations that hold large blocks of public IP addresses will start moving to private IP addresses and release the public IP addresses for use by others. I know some places that have large numbers of systems with public IP addresses that are behind firewalls and really have no business having a public IP address on those systems anymore.

Re:About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824161)

Yeah, like IBM using their 9.0.0.0/8 for desktops.

Re:About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824525)

Or when I worked at Ford they used 19.0.0.0/8 for their workstations and desktops.

My computer at my desk had a public 19.x address and they used their firewalls and corporate blablabla to make it just like an RFC1918 address.

I say yank the 19.0.0.0/8 back from Ford. They only need like 100 addresses tops.

Re:About time! (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 months ago | (#46824733)

I don't understand that at all. If you're going to just have public-facing IP addresses, why not go to IPv6?

Re:About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824809)

Without looking, what is your static IPv6 address? ;)

Re:About time! (5, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | about 6 months ago | (#46824423)

That would have about as much effect as pissing into the ocean would have on raising sea levels.

We need to move to IPv6 and if you're not prepared then yes, it will cost you more than if you had a bit of foresight and didn't keep buying IPv4-only software and hardware right up till the very end.

Re:About time! (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 6 months ago | (#46824145)

Yes, there's profit in scarcity. CGN/CGNAT also has a nice effect in breaking P2P which frees up the bandwidth they've been long seeking anyways. For them, IPv4 is a win-win-win all around.

With regards to IPv6, I expect mobile phones to adopt it this standard more rapidly than your standard PC/Server market for home and business use. With the exception of IPv6 facing web servers of course.

Re:About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824497)

The other "benefit" is that for CGNAT to work you need to have a large pool of addresses to start with, so the lack of unassigned IPv4 blocks means there's no longer reason to worry about pesky new competitors appearing.

Re:About time! (2)

Gerald (9696) | about 6 months ago | (#46824255)

Depends on the ISP. You could create a Homeric epic from the things that Comcast does wrong but they seem to be doing a great job with their v6 deployment. T-Mobile is doing a pretty good job too.

Re:About time! (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 6 months ago | (#46824337)

Comcast is in the unusual position that they are so damn big they have run out of space in net10 leaving them with two painful options, move to IPv6 or "federate" their network so they can reuse the same private IPs in different places.

Re:About time! (1)

decsnake (6658) | about 6 months ago | (#46824653)

no argument about the basic evilness of comcast, but their core network engineers are really, really good.

I'm running V6 at home thru a tunnel and the only major sites that I see supporting V6 are facebook and google.

What this says to me is that the really big players have already gone to V6 out of need, as you pointed out about comcast.

Re:About time! (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about 6 months ago | (#46824311)

Should hold of IPv6 for another 10 years or so.

The odds of us ever actually "transitioning" to IPv6 are somewhere between slim and none for the foreseeable future. The most likely way it will work out is mobile applications (where it doesn't matter what you're using because it's a mobile phone that mates only to the provider's network) will be mostly IPv6 before too long, if they aren't already. Some consumer ISPs may move customers to IPv6, but that will be somewhat delayed by the incredibly slow pace that content providers are switching to IPv6--that is to say, as Akamai has illustrated for us here by getting themselves a /10 (FUCK ME, that's a shitload of IPs for a company that already controls multiple other swaths of space this big) the content providers just aren't bothering to move to IPv6.

And yeah, the ISPs can choose maintain a bridge between the universes, but the more traffic you pour through that bridge the more resources it requires to operate... Eventually, if the ISP can't force the issue it stops making sense to transition any more users to IPv6 until more content providers get on-board.

I fully anticipate retiring in another 25 years or so and still having IPv4 be the vast majority of IP networks in operation because in the end, even if your ISP switches, what's the point of changing your internal network over? Any company of decent size will have a security team that says "No fucking way will outsiders directly connect to your IPv6 address" and block it with some kind of firewall/NAT arrangement which almost instantly negates the biggest "advantage" of IPv6. And once that "advantage" is off the table there is zero business reason to incur the expense involved in such a change-over.

Re:About time! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46824365)

Can't speak globally, but in the UK most mobile applications are carrier-level NATed v4.

There's little reason for content providers to go to IPv6, because hardly any consumers can reach them there.

Re:About time! (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 6 months ago | (#46824881)

Once home / small business switch over the content providers are going to be virtualized. Which means that service will stop working, geolocation being the first to go. They'll lose the ability to meaningfully regulate traffic (everything is coming from West Virginia). It is fairly east to switch most websites over. Most consumer content will switch with a few years of the carriers being ready.

Re:About time! (1)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 6 months ago | (#46824607)

And best yet, ISP’s will have an excuse to charge you extra for not-upgrading their infrastructure so you can continue to do what you already do for additional cost and no material improvements to your service. Brilliant!

Re:About time! (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 6 months ago | (#46824857)

No they won't do that. Carriers have been pretty clear they aren't implementing carrier grade NAT and supporting it. ARIN has been hostile to them making use of carrier grade NAT. It isn't happening.

Re:About time! (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 6 months ago | (#46824265)

Servers can be run on virtualized IPs, like in the ten last years...

Re:About time! (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 6 months ago | (#46824903)

Servers can be run on virtualized IPs, like in the ten last years...

IPs are just numbers. There's nothing physical about them. What the hell is a "virtualized IP"?

Don't worry, the internet only has months to live. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823505)

Besides, just "allocating" IP addresses like it's free? Socialism.

Re:Don't worry, the internet only has months to li (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823569)

Thanks, Obama!

Oh wait.... never mind.

And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823515)

Pretty outrageous that the whole of North America has to go on a diet earlier because Akamai somehow needs a whole fucking /10.

ARIN's behavior has made it clear: you can get all the IPs you want as long as you're a big guy paying big fees. But a small company asking for a /22? Go away, small businesses don't deserve to be able to do business.

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823599)

Akamai actually uses all that shit for SSL. Until SNI is universal, deal with it. Xerox still has a /8 they don't even route so...

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823665)

SNI is universal, unless you're running Windows XP or Android 2.0.3. If you're running either, upgrade [debian.org] . I mean come on, SNI was standardized in 2003 and wasting IPs just for a few legacy clients that ought to have a broken Internet to force them into upgrading is absurd.

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823983)

LOL at upgrade Android.

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 6 months ago | (#46824715)

SNI is universal, unless you're running Windows XP

That's a pretty huge unless!

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824203)

I browse the web with lynx. What the hell is Akamai and why is it getting such privilege?

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823823)

But a small company asking for a /22? Go away, small businesses don't deserve to be able to do business.

How would you decide which small companies get the blocks? There are only 4,194,304 of those blocks in IPv4. This would mean one company per 1700 people in the world, and that's not exactly small.

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823975)

RIR's general policy is if you can prove you require it, you can have it. Akamai clearly have the documentation to prove that they will burn through an entire /10 within a reasonable time frame (It was 3 months at the end in the RIPE region. I'm unsure about ARIN).

Akamai are huge. They claim to provide 15-30% of all web traffic (http://www.akamai.com/html/about/facts_figures.html). Stands to reason that they will likely utilise that all fairly quickly.

As for a company being unable to get a /22? Again, I'm not in the ARIN region, but I'm fairly confident if you can prove you are multi-homed - no problem. You can read their allocation policies here: https://www.arin.net/policy/archive/ipv4.html#multihomed

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824449)

How badly does the typical small-business need a PROVIDER-INDEPENDENT /22? That is the only reason to go to ARIN for address space - otherwise request addresses from your upstream.

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (3, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | about 6 months ago | (#46824681)

Akamai is one of the few companies in the US that is actually using a large allocation they were given. They're the LAST ones you should be complaining about.

Re:And yet Akamai deserves a /10 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824853)

Pretty outrageous that the whole of North America has to go on a diet earlier because Akamai somehow needs a whole fucking /10.

ARIN's behavior has made it clear: you can get all the IPs you want as long as you're a big guy paying big fees. But a small company asking for a /22? Go away, small businesses don't deserve to be able to do business.

One AC to another: you have no idea what you're talking about, but that has never stopped a +5 insightful.

Phase Four!?!? Oh noes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823517)

Now capitalism kicks in and people start buying and selling spare IP4 addresses.

Kinda like that other thing they ain't making any more of....land.

Re:Phase Four!?!? Oh noes (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823619)

I've got a whole block of IPv6 addresses available, cheap... act now, before the rush!

Re:Phase Four!?!? Oh noes (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#46823815)

Hey, now that Intel is trying to sell quarks [intel.com] NICs, we could be looking at a real crunch in the IPv6 space... (and, at a tray price of over $9/unit, large atoms and even most molecules becoming enormously expensive.)

Re:Phase Four!?!? Oh noes (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 6 months ago | (#46823987)

Finally, Xerox will have a revenue increase?

World IPv6 Day (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823549)

It's going to be interesting to see this year.

Sigh (2, Funny)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46823563)

There's no place like ::1

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824167)

So, how much for your ::1?

Wasn't allocation always the problem? (4, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 6 months ago | (#46823587)

Years back, my boss got a whole class C for a company with ~5 employees and network footprint nothing more than one website. Maybe they can get some of the corporations with class As to give some back? (yeah yeah I know)

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (5, Informative)

afidel (530433) | about 6 months ago | (#46823727)

Nope, it takes longer for existing tenants to vacate space than it has been for ARIN to allocate new addresses (ie it would take MIT 5 years to re-engineer their network to free up say half of their allocation, but at the rate we've been using new addresses that space would last less than 10 days, so why should an organization put in 5 years of work to help with 10 days of usage?) so the solution is IPv6.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (3, Funny)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 6 months ago | (#46824477)

IPv6 is the re-engineer the network solution.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824655)

Because all the tenants can vacate space _simultaneously_.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 6 months ago | (#46824845)

ie it would take MIT 5 years to re-engineer their network to free up say half of their allocation

I call BS, it would only take that long if it was a low priority job. If they were told in no uncertain terms to sort it out or be kicked out of the internet I'm sure they could deal with it much quicker than that.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823743)

I was going to post the same thing.

If they raise the cost of blocks of addresses sufficiently, many orgs will relinquish their under-utilized addresses and get a smaller block.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 6 months ago | (#46823855)

Which will fragment blocks and increase the size of the routing table.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824173)

Which will fragment blocks and increase the size of the routing table.

You would have to play around with the math but they should be able to handle this too.
Basically give discounts for less fragmentation, pay people to defragment or even force
defragmentation at certain spots if necessary.

It should be simple enough to look at the tables and look where you can buy up useful
blocks to defragment. If it's worth defragmenting then buying a block here or there for
$1/ip or even $100/ip and giving them a different block should be very doable.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (4, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 6 months ago | (#46824051)

I was going to post the same thing.

If they raise the cost of blocks of addresses sufficiently, many orgs will relinquish their under-utilized addresses and get a smaller block.

And what? We'll buy ourselves another couple of years, at the most? Just fix the problem now and we don't have to worry about this anymore.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (1)

drew_92123 (213321) | about 6 months ago | (#46823745)

I used to work for an ISP, we had a few class Bs and a bunch of class Cs, I remember the first time we were running low and decided to check what our customer that had been assigned blocks of addresses were actually using... maybe 10% were actually in use.

We started assigning smaller blocks to companies that couldn't justify keeping their existing blocks but soon gave up. People are greedy, even with something as seemingly simple as reclaiming unneeded addresses. It was like trying to pry a steak out of a starving dogs mouth... just not a good idea.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (2)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 6 months ago | (#46824229)

People are greedy, even with something as seemingly simple as reclaiming unneeded addresses.

So why not use the greed to your advantage? Charge $10/ip and see how quickly they give back the ones they aren't using.
ARIN could do the same thing. If ARIN charged just $1/ip per month you would see a huge influx of returning ips.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824507)

Except you can't if you were a LIR. And RIPE wanted you to be a LIR if you had more than /19. If you charged money for IPs and not for the internet service, RIPE could revoke all your addresses.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 6 months ago | (#46824335)

The biggest problem has always been the global routing tables. Routing IPv6 is going to get ugly soon too, but we'll see how that turns out.

Re:Wasn't allocation always the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824649)

Can't they just assign big enough blocks for pretty much any ISP ever and still have tons of blocks left over for each zone to give to ISPs that may set up shop there later?

Wouldn't it even reduce routing tables since you could eliminate neighboring blocks not being in neighboring locations? if everything :::5 and down goes through your first port and all the rest go through your second port, you have a very small routing table. By having all those IPv4 blocks being divided a lot more nowadays, your routing tables get a bunch bigger.

2 more phases left... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823591)

Phase 1 Recieve last IPv4 /8 Adresses
Phase 2 Giveaway down to last 3x IPv4 /8 Adresses
Phase 3 Giveaway down to last 2x IPv4 /8 Adresses
Phase 4 Giveaway down to last 1x IPv4 /8 Adresses
Phase 5 ???
Phase 6 Profit

It's the end of the world as we know it. (-1, Offtopic)

Chas (5144) | about 6 months ago | (#46823687)

And I feel cramped!

(He feels cramped.)

(He's a schmuck.)

(Kick his ass.)

HEY!

Sorry. My chorus gets a bit...independent at times.

I'm going to have to break them of that...again...

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it. (0)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 6 months ago | (#46823841)

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine"
  --- REM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Hmm... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823701)

What comes first, a widespread NATed internet or IPv6?

Re:Hmm... (1)

GrpA (691294) | about 6 months ago | (#46823753)

Nat'ed IPv6... No one will use direct allocations. IANA says you can't own them anyway, so what's the point?

FC00::/7 is all I ever see lately.

GrpA

Re:Hmm... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823843)

NAT is already here..

Re:Hmm... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 6 months ago | (#46824519)

I suspect the former.

ISPs NEED to provide their customers with the ability to access resources on the IPv4 internet from end devices that only support IPv4. For most ISPs (massive ones that have problems with running out of private v4 space excepted) who can't give all their customers public IPs the easiest way to achive that will be to deploy NAT44. Once they have deployed the NAT44 there is no real pressure to get arround to deploying IPv6 as well.

Some ISPs may consider building a v6 only access network and using ds-lite instead of using traditional NAT44. There are certainly advantages to that approach but I suspect it will be the exception rather than the rule and mostly seen with ISPs who are building new networks from scratch.

We may see some NAT64 (especially on mobile) but as well as philosophical objections (messing with dns) it has the big problem that it can't support v4 only client devices.

1/8 and 240/8-255/8 (1)

jcomeau_ictx (696704) | about 6 months ago | (#46823703)

285 million addresses reserved for no compelling reason. sure, let's push onwards to ipv6, but saying "our hands are tied" when over 1/16th of the entire space is still available is a bit irritating.

Re:1/8 and 240/8-255/8 (2)

compro01 (777531) | about 6 months ago | (#46823857)

Great. Wave your wand, fix every piece of internet infrastructure that regards those reserved addresses as unroutable, and we can put off exhaustion for about 9 months, at best.

Anything you do to IPv4 is nothing but a short-term stop gap. The address space is simply too small for the modern internet.

Re:1/8 and 240/8-255/8 (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#46823867)

285 million addresses reserved for no compelling reason. sure, let's push onwards to ipv6, but saying "our hands are tied" when over 1/16th of the entire space is still available is a bit irritating.

Would you want to be the guy who pokes every existing and legacy system that makes stupid and/or dangerous assumptions about reserved blocks being reserved permanently? You'd hope that that wouldn't be an issue; but finding out could be exciting indeed.

Re:1/8 and 240/8-255/8 (1)

jcomeau_ictx (696704) | about 6 months ago | (#46824065)

sure, I'm game. I once had a /16 flapping for hours after I made a routing change after a 3-pint lunch and couldn't figure out how to undo what I'd done. and of course my co-workers rightly hung me out to dry.

Re:1/8 and 240/8-255/8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823901)

240 has been marked as multicast for several *generations* of operating systems. You would need to patch the entire internet to change that. (and also convince all the people who are actually *doing* multicast to re-ip out of that range first...so patch the internet twice, really)

A useful case study because it's not catastrophic (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823755)

The IPv4 address exhaustion is a useful case study in human behavior in response to resource exhaustion.

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_transcript_english.html

Relevant quote: "Remember our conclusion from the cartoon of one person per square meter; we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen. Let’s state that conclusion in other terms and say it’s obvious nature is going to choose from the right hand list and we don't have to do anything—except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right hand list. Or we can exercise the one option that’s open to us, and that option is to choose first from the right hand list. We gotta find something here we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease? (audience laughter)"

In this case, fortunately, it's extremely unlikely that violence and death will occur as a result of this specific resource exhaustion, but the study of human behavior in response to the resource shortage is telling.

We've been aware for years that zero IPv4 address availability is going to happen. It's absolutely certain. The only way to make it not happen, or not *care* that it happens, is to do something about the problem. But of course, even for such a technically manageable problem, humanity on the whole chooses to do nothing. The exact same thing will happen for fossil fuel exhaustion, arable land exhaustion, etc.

And now nature will choose for us from the right-hand list of IPv4 exhaustion: here comes corporate greed, lawsuits, slow and inconvenient CGNs (one bad actor in your ISP's network causes you to be banned from the services you use), etc.

Humans are hard-wired to be reactionary, not proactive -- and at that, only reactionary to immediate problems. "Oh, I can't get a new IPv4 address. What do I do?" or "Oh, I can get a new IPv4 address, but it's too expensive. What do I do?" -- These are the kinds of things we will start thinking about, and making people start to care. NOT "Oh, we better deal with this problem that is likely to happen in 5 years."

As flawed as we are, it's probably a good thing that we won't survive long enough to leave our solar system and populate the cosmos. We don't deserve it. We're just too *dumb* as a species.

Re: A useful case study because it's not catastrop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824013)

You assume wrongly that most of the world behaves like the british and people from english-speaking countries, who still haven't made the move to the universal measurement system, and neither have reformed their language to make grammar and pronounciation rules consistent.

Re: A useful case study because it's not catastrop (1)

Sique (173459) | about 6 months ago | (#46824205)

There are no languages where grammar and pronounciation rules are completely consistent. Spanish and Indonesian come close with regards to grammar, and Dutch and Czech, when it comes to spelling vs. pronounciation, but there just is no language which is completely consistent. Even artificial languages like Esperanto have their inconsistencies.

Re: A useful case study because it's not catastrop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824561)

You are wrong. Bulgarian is a language with 100% persistent pronunciation.

Re: A useful case study because it's not catastrop (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46824247)

still haven't made the move to the universal measurement system

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one using the universal Klapagorg measurement system!

Re:A useful case study because it's not catastroph (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about 6 months ago | (#46824267)

As flawed as we are, it's probably a good thing that we won't survive long enough to leave our solar system and populate the cosmos. We don't deserve it. We're just too *dumb* as a species.

How is anyone supposed to take a person like this seriously?

It didn't matter whether it was last year or next (3, Interesting)

gjh (231652) | about 6 months ago | (#46823783)

It didn't matter whether it was last year or next...IP usage was accelerating into the wall anyway. The GOOD part about this is that now the US is out of addresses certain parts of the Internet industry are more likely to take IPv6 seriously.

Sadly, ISPs in other parts of the world have proven adept at further avoiding the problem by downgrading consumer connections to carrier-grade NAT, so we have another 5 years of eking out of old order before people REALLY have to take notice.

Re:It didn't matter whether it was last year or ne (5, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | about 6 months ago | (#46823953)

Now that addresses have run out, they have become a valuable resource for the ISPs that own them. If those ISPs implement IPv6 then there will be no shortage of addresses, and they will lose all their value.

So the monopolist ISPs will now do everything in their power to prevent IPv6 from being adopted.

Thanks! (1)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#46824399)

You brightened my day.

Re:It didn't matter whether it was last year or ne (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824861)

So now the exact same thing that happened with land will happen with "land".

Re:It didn't matter whether it was last year or ne (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 6 months ago | (#46824355)

Most of the ISPs I've dealt with here in Canada do not offer routable IPv6 allocations to users. They certainly don't readily offer static ones for business use like they do with IPv4.

Re:It didn't matter whether it was last year or ne (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 6 months ago | (#46824665)

so we have another 5 years of eking out of old order before people REALLY have to take notice.

Possiblly much more than that.

XP and andriod 2.x are dying. They aren't dead yet but in a few years time their relavence will likely have declined to the level where website operators think it reasonable to stop supporting their default browsers. Once that happens we will be able to use SNI (and tell the holdouts still on XP to "use firefox or chrome damnit")

Once that happens it will be possible to put multiple SSL websites behind one IP reducing the IP demand on the hosting side. With end lusers put behind CGN, SSL web hosting running multiple sites per IP and basic VM hosting using front end load balancers to let them share IPv4 IPs it should be possible to keep IPv4 going for a long time.

One interesting question is what price will IPv4 addresses reach, currently it seems to vary from about $7-$25 per address depending on block size (http://ipv4auctions.bstocksolutions.com/)

Oh well we can all just use NAT (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823809)

NAT works great, no issues here [Ducks!]

Kidding guys :)

/8 ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46823915)

in all my years of using a computer and the internet, I have never heard of /8 before. Thanks for sharing.

We are not anywhere near running out of addresses. (4, Interesting)

ErikTheRed (162431) | about 6 months ago | (#46823931)

We're running out of free ones. And like any freely available resource, they've been squandered. Once the free supply is exhausted, they'll simply no longer be free - meaning that actual incentive will exist to conserve them and organizations will have incentive to sell unneeded blocks. Economics 101, people.

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (2)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46824019)

I doubt the organizations with those large blocks will sell them unless they become very expensive (which I don't think will happen for a long time). The costs of restructuring the network for a lot of these companies would far outweigh the gains.

What I see as far more likely is ISPs implementing carrier grade NAT as the default, and potentially charging a small fee for those who need a unique IP. The vast majority of users won't care, and as long as getting an IP if you run a game server or use skype or whatever is an easy process, it's actually not a bad solution. I figure we've got 10 years or so before we actually see IPv6 really take off.

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824383)

If you go by http://ipv4auctions.bstocksolutions.com/ a /8 is worth roughly USD 100M. There are a few unused ones by companies out there...

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 6 months ago | (#46824039)

We're running out of free ones. And like any freely available resource, they've been squandered. Once the free supply is exhausted, they'll simply no longer be free - meaning that actual incentive will exist to conserve them and organizations will have incentive to sell unneeded blocks. Economics 101, people.

Why would you choose that option when we have a way of bypassing it? Isn't progress generally about creating plenty? We have the ability to create plenty, and not have to deal with buying and selling IP addresses. Just because you can create a market doesn't mean you should.

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (2)

Kurast (1662819) | about 6 months ago | (#46824239)

Because there is a very high one-time-only cost involved in switching to ipv6, compared to a small running continuous cost of continuing in ipv4, and for now, it is advantageous to become in ipv4. No one wants to be the one to switch first.

Just think of all sort of problems large ISPs will have to deal in terms of support if they switch to ipv6, in terms of phone service, visits, substitution of cable modems, support for old machines running none/bogus ipv6 implementation.

Just think of all the programs coded years ago, with ipv4 hardwired in (I know 4to6, but your client does not).

Not easy as flick a switch.

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 6 months ago | (#46824785)

Why would you choose that option when we have a way of bypassing it?

Because people will do what is individally best for them, not what is best for the community as a whole.

If I want to run a server for the general public to access over the internet it needs to have an IPv4 address until such time as the vast majority of clients can reliablly access IPv6 servers (I would not consider teredo to be "reliable", it's overcomplicated and fights against NAT rather than working with it).

Similarly if I want my users to be able to access resources on the public internet I need IPv4 addresses for the intent side of my nat boxes until such time as the vast majority of servers are available on IPv6.

If I deploy IPv6 it will not change whether those systems need IPv4 addresses. To do that requires OTHER PEOPLE to deploy IPv6 which they are often unintertested in doing.

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (5, Funny)

pr0nbot (313417) | about 6 months ago | (#46824059)

Clearly we should have invested years ago in finding renewable sources of IP addresses...

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (5, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 6 months ago | (#46824685)

Here at DHCP, we're committed to providing only renewable and conflict-free IPs.

Re:We are not anywhere near running out of address (2)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about 6 months ago | (#46824613)

Except this still won't fix the fact that v4 is simply too small.

3 February 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824289)

That was over three years ago, why is this news?

So let's finally move on (2)

dkman (863999) | about 6 months ago | (#46824315)

So let's finally move on to IPv6. ISPs, I'm looking at you.

Some people.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46824325)

I run several Xen virtual servers rented from a VPS vendor.. They come with two ip addresses, one of which I don't need. I asked them about returning the extra address to them, as I didn't need it.. They said "no, we have plenty" ... ????? Hey! I thought the ipv4 address space was running out... hmmm.. guess not.. At least THIS vendor does ipv6.. each vps comes with 3 (count 'em THREE) ipv6 addresses.. WAAAY cool!!

Re:Some people.. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 6 months ago | (#46824867)

Hey! I thought the ipv4 address space was running out... hmmm.. guess not.

Or maybe the vendor in question are doing it to "justify" getting a larger allocation from the RIR, once IP space really runs out they can reconsider their policy.

And yet... (2)

Dahan (130247) | about 6 months ago | (#46824373)

Obligatory comment on Slashdot articles about IPv4 exhaustion or IPv6:

$ host -t aaaa slashdot.org
slashdot.org has no AAAA record

So lets take the whole address space back (-1, Troll)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#46824485)

Lets leave IPv6 for those people who want to communicate Internationally. We will simply take back the entire address space and have the complete 32bits for the US.
That should leave more than enough addresses here for most anything and force the IPv6 transition onto only those people/services that need to go across borders.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?