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!

Latin America Exhausts IPv4 Addresses

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the bofh-excuse-#666-internet-ran-out-of-addresses dept.

The Internet 197

An anonymous reader writes "LACNIC, the regional Internet registry for Latin America and the Caribbean, considers its IPv4 address pool exhausted, because it is down to less than a quarter of an /8, roughly 4 million IPv4 addresses which are reserved for facilitating transitioning mechanisms. Half of those addresses will be assigned on a first come, first served basis, but no more than 1024 addresses per organization every 6 six months. Allocations from the last 2 million addresses will be a maximum of 1024 addresses total per organization. To maintain connectivity, it is now indispensable to make the switch to IPv6. LACNIC's CEO expressed his concern that many operators and companies still haven't taken the steps needed to duly address this circumstance. The RIRs for Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America have all imposed similar limitations on IPv4 assignments when they also crossed their local exhaustion thresholds. As of now, only AfriNIC is not in address exhaustion mode." Joining North America, and Europe/the Middle East/Central Asia.

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

"Every 6 six months" (1)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 5 months ago | (#47212437)

So they're only allowing organizations to have 1024 addresses per three years?

Any good hoster in Africa ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212709)

"As of now, only AfriNIC is not in address exhaustion mode"

BTW, is there any reputable hoster located in Africa ?

Any suggestion ?

Re:Any good hoster in Africa ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47214289)

South Africa? also, with IP4 exhaustion, there may very will be one soon.

On behalf of all network specialists, (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#47212439)

We warned you years ago this would happen! But no-one ever listens.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 months ago | (#47212485)

We warned you years ago this would happen! But no-one ever listens.

mañana

yep, 14 years ago I announced the switchover (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 5 months ago | (#47212501)

For years, indeed. I think it was 14 years ago, in 2000, on April Fool's day I announced on a major forum that the internet would be down for about 20 minutes while the root nameservers were switched over to IPv6.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 5 months ago | (#47212511)

Ya, you have been warning people that it was going to happen in 2 month for the last 6 years. And this article is still about "almost completely out".

Your predictions for the v4 "apocalypse" are nothing to brag about.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

aevan (903814) | about 5 months ago | (#47213631)

'Asymptotes never cross zero'. Doesn't mean they don't get damned close, and doesn't mean it's a happy existence. If they dole out 1 address per year we can avoid having to change from IPv4 for millennia!!

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 5 months ago | (#47214273)

And this article is still about "almost completely out".

Where "almost completely out" means, from the article, that:

2,097,150 of the remaining 4,194,302 addresses may be assigned during this phase, in blocks of limited sizes (assignments) comprising between 256 and 1,024 IP addresses. Likewise, an organization may only request additional resources six months after receiving a prior assignment.

Technically, the naysayers are right: they're not "out". They're just at the "you can buy two gallons of gas per month" stage. Realistically, no one can get it and certainly not enough at a time to do anything meaningful with it, but there's technically still supply left.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (4, Insightful)

slack_justyb (862874) | about 5 months ago | (#47212563)

If the bulk of human history isn't a lesson. Pretty much no one does anything until all hell is breaking loose. I don't know if it is in our genetics or what.

At any rate. A lot of "technical" folk will say, let's use NAT! And that will work for maybe a few years, maybe a decade or so, but then eventually that will break down. Finally, people will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess it's finally time we switched over to IPv6." IPv6 is indeed the solution, but we've first got to do every other solution just because for some reason that's who we are.

So IPv4 isn't going away any time soon but for all the wrong reasons. So they will continue to not listen to any specialists till ALL other options are completely exhausted. Then after all of that we'll finally get to move on to the next big thing that was purposed twenty years ago.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

Zorpheus (857617) | about 5 months ago | (#47212655)

Isn't the problem that only people without an IPv4 address will have problems? If they can not access large parts of the internet, and they are a small minority, it will be up to them to find a solution.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (4, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | about 5 months ago | (#47212809)

People with only an IPv6 address should theoretically be able to access the IPv4 internet via a sort of v6-to-v4 NAT. It's the people who want to run servers accessed by the rest of the world who really need a real IPv4 address until that distant future when IPv6 finally becomes dominant. (Which won't be for a long while because of all the old computers out there that have either no or insufficient IPv6 support.)

I think one of the big factors of address consumption has been cell phones. They do not need to be publicly accessible from random IPv4 address, so they are prime candidates for this kind of migration.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

redalien (711170) | about 5 months ago | (#47213433)

momcorpflagship:~ matthewwilkes$ ifconfig
lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384
options=3
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
nd6 options=1
en0: flags=8863 mtu 1500
ether XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
inet6 fe80::XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
inet6 2001:8b0:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX prefixlen 64 autoconf
inet6 2001:8b0:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX prefixlen 64 autoconf temporary
nd6 options=1
media: autoselect
status: active
momcorpflagship:~ matthewwilkes$ ping6 slashdot.org
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:8b0:ca12:3193:7dc2:1078:67fb:31f4 --> 2001:8b0:6464::666:616:d822:b52d
16 bytes from 2001:8b0:6464::666:616:d822:b52d, icmp_seq=0 hlim=241 time=165.418 ms
16 bytes from 2001:8b0:6464::666:616:d822:b52d, icmp_seq=1 hlim=241 time=121.267 ms
^C
--- slashdot.org ping6 statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 121.267/143.343/165.418/22.075 ms

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

redalien (711170) | about 5 months ago | (#47213467)

I'm crap at redaction. And formatting.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (4, Funny)

Megane (129182) | about 5 months ago | (#47214313)

And at explaining your point.

Re: On behalf of all network specialists, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213741)

Unless you use products like Microsoft Communicator on your phone for business communication - that doesn't work over IPv6.

Yes, software should be transport agnostic. Yes, business software released in 2013 should have been tested for that before release.

But it still doesn't work. (And don't give me crap about it being a MSFT product, there are lots of examples out there. That's just one. )

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 5 months ago | (#47213829)

That's why cell phones should be the first to make the switch to IPv6. Those devices are far more numerous and are replaced more often to that of PCs/Servers.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (2)

kilodelta (843627) | about 5 months ago | (#47214293)

Back in the mid 2000's I managed to snag a C Class block of IP's for a government agency. They still hold it now. The reality though even though we had the full 8 bits at the end to play with, we only used about 15 addresses.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213041)

If the bulk of human history isn't a lesson. Pretty much no one does anything until all hell is breaking loose. I don't know if it is in our genetics or what.

I think the main reason is survival. There are a lot of people warning about different stuff all the time. If you try to protect yourself from everything you wont have time to do important things like eat and sleep.
Most of the time things aren't as important as people claim so it is perfectly fine to wait until shit happens until you solve it. It is also a lot more efficient since you don't have to solve all problems that weren't.

IP-adresses sounds like the typical kind of problem that can wait. You don't actually have to implement IPv6 before you run out of IPv4 and if you wait you will get a much better idea of how much time and resources you can spend on the switch.
Now that I think about it I don't really see much benefit to switching until you actually need to. The only thing it does is that it helps resolving a hen/egg-situation for someone else.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

uncqual (836337) | about 5 months ago | (#47214145)

Similar to agile development principles.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about 5 months ago | (#47213279)

Then after all of that we'll finally get to move on to the next big thing that was purposed twenty years ago.

Look at the bright side.... We've delayed the IPv6 apocalypse by twenty years.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213419)

Organisations are waiting until the final countdown so they can hire the Big Three consulting firms to solve their problems for megabucks. Don't you remember Y2K?

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

wasteoid (1897370) | about 5 months ago | (#47213505)

The humans will do the right thing - after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (-1, Flamebait)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 5 months ago | (#47213527)

At any rate. A lot of "technical" folk will say, let's use NAT! And that will work for maybe a few years, maybe a decade or so, but then eventually that will break down. Finally, people will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess it's finally time we switched over to IPv6." IPv6 is indeed the solution, but we've first got to do every other solution just because for some reason that's who we are.

Actually, NAT"s been around for what, 2 decades now? IPv4 would've been exhausted before the millennium otherwise.

The big thing with IPv6 is that it doesn't solve everything. Everyone has overhyped it as the magic sword that does everything, when it doesn't.

Case in point - everything will again have their own IP address and you don't have to use stuff like STUN or other things because end-to-end connectivity is guaranteed. False, since firewalls are still around, and just because both ends can see each other doesn't mean they can talk to each other.

Then there's the "guilty PC" problem that the content creators oh-so-love. It's hard to identify people from PCs now because so many devices share a single IP address. But when that single IP means a single device, it's a heck of a lot easier.

Then there's NAT. Which is a WONDERFUL technology when you want to isolate your network numbering from someone else. You know, like how you can have a networking using 10/8 or other static IPs and they talk to the gateway and all that. And when your ISP decides to give you a new IP address, your work pretty much is zero?

Well, with IPv6 right now, if your ISP changes your prefix, have fun resetting the configuration of everything to use that new prefix. Hope the auto-discovery picks everything up and maybe things will work. If not, have fun debugging. And while NATv6 is defined, many places (e.g., Linux) refuse to accept it. I mean, is it so bad that my internal network ... works? And if my ISP gives me a new prefix I do diddly squat like right now? Or that I don't have to remember what the IP is of the PC next to me is after it's prefix changes?

Then again, tell ISPs that they should inspect the QoS bits in an IPv6 packet header to determine how to charge for it. If it's set to high priority, well, $$$ for that packet. That'll see really fast rollouts when they realize they can charge for packets that set the QoS bit other than low priority low effort.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (0)

houghi (78078) | about 5 months ago | (#47213655)

Lets look at it from the point of view from those who actualy buy (rent) the IP adresses. That will be in general the internet providers. The end-user will only get one assigned through a provider. (Yes, I am aware that not all IP 'owners' are providers. There are some larger companies involed as well)

Going to IPv6 would mean investment into the technology. Be it training people or buying new hardware, there will be a cost.
By not doing that, there was no investment, so no cost. On the other plus side, they could ask money for fixed IP adresses (even though everybody already needed one) and make extra money.
The third plus side for them will be that when the IP adresses actualy run out, they can have another item they can charge.
You can have a 10.x.x.x adress, you can have an flex IP for a price or a fixed for an even higher price.

Bot only do they want to keep cake and eat it, they also want to sell it.
So why would your provider be interested in going towards IPv6? Do not think technical, think financial.

The NAT adresses give ANOTHER plus and that is a better control over what you can and can not see, because they will argue that you are not realy connected to the Internet. So they can go around the net-neutrality.

OK, that last part is speculation. In current reality : there is NO incentive for the majority of IPv4 owners to change. Instead for them it is better NOT to change, because they will be owners of a scarce product that becomes scarcer by the minute. Why give that up? Especuially if giving it up costs you money AND removes income.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#47212793)

We warned you years ago this would happen! But no-one ever listens.

I think it follows a pattern of an alcoholic: he knows that he should have stopped years ago, but doesn't quit the booze until the doctor says that you're gonna die if you don't give it up.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 5 months ago | (#47212833)

Everyone knew this would happen eventually. No one listened to the chicken littles that were screaming "the sky is falling!" every year for more than a decade.

That's what happens when you cry wolf (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212945)

The problem is that people were fear mongering the imminent exhaustion of IP 4 addresses for 20+ years. We were supposed to run out in 1992.

Eventually people will dismiss your warnings because you were not realistic about them in the first place. Now that it is happening, no one is paying attention until the whole thing comes to a screeching halt.

Re:That's what happens when you cry wolf (4, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#47213291)

The problem is with people not understanding probability or what a prognosis is. It's like a pack-a-day smoker whose doctor says "you're probably going to get cancer within ten years if you keep this up". Five years pass, ten years, fifteen years... nothing; clearly the doctor is an idiot and I am an immortal cancer-immune demigod. Twenty years... boom, cancer.

"Realistic prognosis"? You can't accurately predict unexpected changes. So you err on the side of urgency, because if what you predict happens sooner than expected, that's much, much worse than if you respond sooner than you actually need to.

Instead, people first ignore the warning, then see that the bad thing didn't happen on schedule, then deciding that this invalidates the entire warning.

(See also: Climate change.)

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213453)

That's exactly the problem.

When we noticed that IPv4 addresses are nearing an end, we warned. Nobody listened. Why? Because the announced apocalypse didn't happen. Of course, behind the scenes a LOT of juggling has taken place, but management didn't notice anything about it.

That whole deal repeated time and again, every time v4 addresses neared the end. Every time someone found a way to somehow redistribute the remaining addresses so that nobody "outside the circle" had to notice.

Our "flaw" was that we only saw the technical side. Business dictates, though, that whenever something like that happens, someone will step in and solve it. For money, of course. Few notice it because the cost of this juggling is usually offset by other things getting cheaper. That we could have a LOT cheaper internet by now by cutting off the slack that these jugglers present is something few people know and even fewer want to talk about. Because everyone who knows actually somehow benefits from it.

But we get seen like we'd cry wolf a few too many times. So don't expect anyone to listen to us anymore. Everyone will just hope that someone will come in and start wiggling the wires so some IP addresses will magically appear somehow.

Re:On behalf of all network specialists, (1)

N. Criss (961443) | about 5 months ago | (#47213999)

IPv6 was not designed to allow for a graceful transition from v4. The feet-dragging is completely rational. http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mes... [cr.yp.to]

Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212447)

Since we don't see much adoption for IPv6, how about we add another four octets to IPv4 as an "area code". It definitely isn't as easy as this sounds, but the trick is getting something in place that works like WPA was put in for devices that didn't have the power for WPA2.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#47212535)

They've basically already did this with ipv6 with all the ipv4 numbers accessible as a subset of ipv6.
I don't see the adoption of an area code system any more likely than the adoption of ipv6.
There might be some type of solution like that though. Basically what you're suggesting is allowing 2
computers to have the same ipv4 address so just like 2 computers not on the same network can
have the same mac address without conflicting it could be possible to design a system where a
computer in africa has the same ip as a server in china without conflict.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212593)

I can remember number.number.number.number.

I cannot remember ASDFDAVUDSFWSNASDCNACKEFADCKSA Which is also an IPV6 address

It's like instead of adding an area code to the phone system, we add letters of the alphabet such that my phone number is now 123-456-7890-ABCDEF-GHIJKLMN and then people no longer can remember phone numbers and refuse to use it.

All IPV4 needed was another octect or two TOPS.

I can easily remember 10.0.0.0.1 as my new local 5-octet private subnet. But jeeze don't just add 500 alphabet characters expecting things to be the same.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212685)

I can remember number.number.number.number.

I cannot remember ASDFDAVUDSFWSNASDCNACKEFADCKSA Which is also an IPV6 address

It's like instead of adding an area code to the phone system, we add letters of the alphabet such that my phone number is now 123-456-7890-ABCDEF-GHIJKLMN and then people no longer can remember phone numbers and refuse to use it.

All IPV4 needed was another octect or two TOPS.

I can easily remember 10.0.0.0.1 as my new local 5-octet private subnet. But jeeze don't just add 500 alphabet characters expecting things to be the same.

You know that's just hex code right? IPv6 addresses can also be written in decimal if you want. IPv6 really is just like adding an area code to the IPv4 addresses.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#47213677)

It's still quadrupling the information (from 32 bits to 128 bits), though most IPv6 addresses can be shortened.

But to be honest, this is what DNS is for. If you find yourself regularly having to memorize or manually type dotted quad IPv4 as a user, you're doing something wrong; and if you're a sysadmin, you're routinely memorizing (or writing down) other things that are more complex than that.

Mnemonics could also help, like assigning words to bytes [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47214375)

It's still quadrupling the information (from 32 bits to 128 bits)

IPv6 quadruples the number of bits, from 32 to 128 as you pointed out. However, this results in way more than 4 times the IP addresses. Specifically, IPv6 allows 79228162514264337593543950336 times more address than IPv4.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#47213845)

Not really. An area code, in the US and Canada at least, is 3 digits. Going from IPV4 to IPV6 adds a lot more than 3 digits. An actual example of an IPV6 address is as follows:

2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334

which is a lot longer than an IPV4 Address such as:

123.123.123.123

And IPV6 address has 4 times as many digits as an IPV6 address, if you write it in the same base. That's way more than just adding and "area code"

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212687)

wow, you really know nothing about IPV6 do you?

your ignorance shows...

yes there's letters... but really the numbers in your v4 address really only represent an 8 bit octet translated to binary. in ipv6 they're translated to Hexadecimal.

the 2 character IPV6 address (your "IPV6 address" has A: way to many characters, B: invalid characters, and C: no colons all of which are necessary...

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 5 months ago | (#47212713)

I'm pretty sure the letters are limited to A-F and map to hexadecimal notation. Not arguing that it's any easier to remember than you suggest but it's not the whole alphabet being used here. IPv6 addresses can be expressed in decimal (or octal for that matter) but the reasoning behind using hexadecimal notation is that it reduces the number of 'digits' you need to remember. It's easier to wrap your head around it if you've ever used hex for memory addressing or similar low level tasks.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

drakaan (688386) | about 5 months ago | (#47213545)

Your explanation is good, but I agree with the sentiment expressed by the OP. I don't have a problem with hex, per-se, but I have a harder time memorizing MAC addresses (or IPv6 addresses) than IPv4 addresses.

The decision to switch from decimal to hexadecimal notation was arbitrary and jarring...not at all unlike switching phone numbers from decimal to alphanumeric notation would be.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212893)

I agree with your point on remembering IPv4 addresses, and with phone numbers, but where you are incorrect is that the legal IPv6 letters are only ABCDEF - these are the characters used to represent 10 - 15 in Hexidecimal (base 16). And I'll probably never be able to remember IPv6 addresses as I do now in the private networks that I am responsible for. As far as NAT, I don't keep my machines on public space as a best security practice and only forward public address space to specific servers in my DMZs; therefore, I'm surprised at how much IPv4 space non-ISP companies think they need.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213359)

So an address like C0A8:0166 is not to your liking? Would you like 192.168.1.102 better? Or are you the kind of decimal purist that would feel more comfortable with 3,232,235,878?

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

AC-x (735297) | about 5 months ago | (#47213877)

I can remember number.number.number.number.

I cannot remember ASDFDAVUDSFWSNASDCNACKEFADCKSA Which is also an IPV6 address

I can easily remember 10.0.0.0.1 as my new local 5-octet private subnet. But jeeze don't just add 500 alphabet characters expecting things to be the same.

You seem to not realise that IP6 has shorthand built in.

For example the IP6 address of Wikipedia is 2001:503:BA3E::2:30, not really that much harder than 91.198.174.192 is it?

Local subnets are even easier, fe80::1 is actually shorter than 10.0.0.0.1

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212677)

What's the difference between adding an octet and just adopting IPv6? Both would require every router in the stream be upgraded to handle the new format....

The ISPs just need to get their equipment upgraded and start handing out IPv6...but nobody wants to be the first.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213263)

So ... you say that we should adopt v6.

Because that's essentially what adopting v6 would be about.

Re:Sometimes I wonder about half-assing it... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#47213471)

four octets to IPv4 as an "area code"

Kinda how IPv6 works; except there's only one two-octet area code (2002::, or 32.2. in dotted decimal) for the old IPv4 addresses, and all the other addresses work differently.

(Of course, if the recipient only understands IPv4, and the sender only has an IPv6 address, then the packets can only be sent one direction. I'm not sure if or how an IPv6 host and an IPv4 host can establish a TCP handshake, starting from either end.)

i would (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212475)

switch in a heartbeat, but my isp (fios) needs to get their shit together. I have all the equipment/software to do ipv6, now it's time for isps to do it.

Re:i would (2)

rjmx (233228) | about 5 months ago | (#47212541)

Surprisingly, Comcast is now giving out /64 IPv6 addresses in my area (south-eastern Massachusetts). Spent a couple of evenings last week getting it all connected. Works fine.

Re:i would (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 5 months ago | (#47213473)

I keep checking their site to see if they've started supporting my part of town. Still no love.

Re:i would (1)

Megane (129182) | about 5 months ago | (#47212971)

I recently upgraded my old DSL to Uverse (with one of the newer Motorola modems, not the 2wire modems that I hear were total crap in comparison), and they have 6rd [wikipedia.org] allocations set up for their IPv4 space, using a 24-bit 6rd block. So not only can I access the v6 internet, my 6rd address block is static based on my static IPv4 address block. (At least if and until they decide to more their customer addresses into a "real" IPv6 allocation.) As I understand it, the modem itself does the 6to4 encapsulation to ATT's outbound IPv6 proxy.

So IPv6 is finally reaching at least some regular ISP customers.

Re:i would (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 5 months ago | (#47213057)

Do like I did, get a free 4to6 tunnel from tunnelbroker.com, a public service from Hurricane Electric (he.com). Since my edge router is able to run the Tomato firmware, it has the capability to act as the endpoint for one of these tunnels, plus it can update my dynamic address from Cox when it changes, to keep the tunnel working.. Very slick.. Its fun to watch my Debian machines doing an apt-get update, and seeing an ipv6 address listed.. The current version of Tomato also implementts ip6tables so you're protected from that end.. Even if you don't have an edge router that can do Tomato, its still pretty easy to configure an always-on Linux machine to handle the tunnel endpoint, just so long as your firewall can be configured to pass protocol 41 (6to4 protocol, as I recall).. They give you a /64 prefix, which is a multi-mega-bazillion number ipv6 addresses.. Big numbers like that give me a headache..

Re:i would (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213243)

That problem is shared by people all over the globe.

And even if your ISP offers v6 support, they often "forget" to tell their support. If yours offers v6, if you have some spare time and want some entertainment on support's expense, call them and ask them for aid in setting up v6.

Y2K (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 5 months ago | (#47212519)

This sounds like Y2K all over again...

Re:Y2K (2)

JcMorin (930466) | about 5 months ago | (#47212545)

Yeah soon you won't be able to go on the internet!

Re:Y2K (5, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 5 months ago | (#47212595)

This sounds like Y2K all over again...

What, that legitimate problem lots of people worked on successfully to avoid before it could have major consequences? Yeah, I agree.

Re:Y2K (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 5 months ago | (#47212783)

This sounds like Y2K all over again...

What, that legitimate problem lots of people worked on successfully to avoid before it could have major consequences? Yeah, I agree.

Yeah, and after all that work to prepare, the rest of the world said "I don't know why you nerds made such a big deal out of this. Nothing happened!" It's enough to make you want to quit your job, cut the soles off your shoes, sit in a tree and learn to play the flute.

Re:Y2K (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212835)

Y2K was never a legitimate problem. Computers have no problem going from Dec 31st, 1999 to Jan 1st 2000. The only problems are constructs of human representation of time, like seeing "1/1/00". Is that 1900 or 2000!? We have no clue! But we do, actually, just like we knew '99' meant "1999" and not "1899". It was sensationalist bullshit that only caused headaches in the tech industry because stupid people were making a big stink out of it, so we had to go around slapping "Y2K Ready" stickers on everything to assure them the world wouldn't end.

The *real* legitimate problem with time will occur in 2038, and we've already made the solution to that. Computers that are old enough to suffer that problem will hopefully not be maintaining some necessary piece of infrastructure.

Re:Y2K (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213185)

So you really never had to deal with a computer program that calculated difference in years by going "take number of years in 'new date' and subtract number of years in 'old date'"?

Just to give you a hint, and NDAs be damned in this case, you have NO IDEA how many bookkeeping programs had a LOT of problems calculating annual write offs right. You just never noticed it because the programs are not real time dependent and you have a LOT of time to work with between noticing the problem (when you do your first version of your balance) and the time it becomes critical (when you have to hand in your balance to government/auditor/board).

There were other, not so "fortunate" situations where a lot of money had to be used to get it done in time. And the ever feared "what if the nukes notice they had no contact with control for a century?" doomsday was only the tip of the iceberg. You really can't even imagine half the big and small tidbits that ran on systems that had exactly the problem.

And yes, January 2038 certainly is going to be an interesting time again. It is rather unlikely, though, that it will be as big a problem since Jan 2038 is mostly an OS problem rather than an application program problem. I.e. we should see fewer and (mostly) easier to fix problems.

Re:Y2K (1)

sribe (304414) | about 5 months ago | (#47213311)

There were other, not so "fortunate" situations where a lot of money had to be used to get it done in time.

True story, a well-known vendor of banking applications could not handle year 2000 dates in its mortgage software, and as of 1987 still had not been able to get it fixed. That's right, 17 years was not enough for that (extremely poorly run) organization.

Re:Y2K (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213307)

I can't tell if you're a moron, a troll, or both.

Re:Y2K (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 5 months ago | (#47213401)

Ah, well if an AC says it wasn't a problem, surely it wasn't...

Re:Y2K (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 5 months ago | (#47213499)

The *real* legitimate problem with time will occur in 2038, and we've already made the solution to that.

What is the solution for 32-bit Linux? Switch to 64-bit Linux? 32-bit only processors still being churned out en masse today with no available solution and no sign of this changing anytime soon.

To assume number of 32-bit systems in 2038 running Linux will be zero is more foolish than waiting to exhaustion before deploying IPv6.

Re:Y2K (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#47213917)

To assume number of 32-bit systems in 2038 running Linux will be zero is more foolish than waiting to exhaustion before deploying IPv6.

Hmmm ... 2038 is in 24 years.

24 years ago from now was 1990. That was just around the time the first 486 machines were released.

So, in the same way as nobody seriously gives a damn about ancient 486s, if you're still running 32-bit Linux in 24 years ... well, that will be your damned problem. :-P

If this is an issue for you, I suggest you start pondering getting a 64-bit machine ... you've got 24 years to do it.

Re:Y2K (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212847)

This sounds like Y2K all over again...

What, that legitimate problem lots of people worked on successfully to avoid before it could have major consequences? Yeah, I agree.

Let's not make it sound like it was that difficult of a problem to solve.

Re:Y2K (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213215)

So I now know one person who didn't have to fix an ancient program written by a guy who no longer lives with source code lost in an archaic language he needed last time during his university years in no more than 2 months or the sky be falling...

No need for action (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212561)

Let us know when it gets down to zero available and then we'll spend the weekend fixing it.

If we're not going to switch, charge per ip (4, Interesting)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#47212591)

If we're too lazy to switch to ipv6 then they need to just start charging per ip.
$1 per ip per year should be sufficient to cause plenty of ip hoarders to return their stock.
If that's not enough then increase it to $1 per ip per month. Still small enough that
it shouldn't really affect anyone too much. My guess is any computer that can't
absorb a $1/month charge is not an actually computer and should have a private
10.0 number anyways.

Charge per ip might also be a good way to help encourage ipv6 switchover.

Re:If we're not going to switch, charge per ip (1)

hankwang (413283) | about 5 months ago | (#47213013)

"just start charging per ip $1 per ip per year should be sufficient"

And who should benefit from the $4B/yr revenue? The American government because ICANN is in the US?

Re:If we're not going to switch, charge per ip (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 5 months ago | (#47213125)

Here's the weird part.. I have several Xen/Linux virtual servers thru a vps hosting company.. They include 2 ipv4 addresses and 6 ipv6 addresses with each vps.. On one of my vps, since I host two different sites on it, the two ipv4 addresses are kinda handy.. However, on several others, I have zero need/use for more than one ipv4 address.. I asked their support to take the unneeded addresses back, since ipv4 addresses are in short supply.. Their response? Don't worry, we have plenty... Huh???
I wonder how often this scenario plays out with other vendors? One often wonders just how bad the shortage is when vendors can do this with their address-blocks...

Re:If we're not going to switch, charge per ip (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213315)

Comcast is way ahead of you, dude. They're already charging me $3/month per static routed IP address. I'm feeling plenty of "incentive" to move to IPv6, which of course they don't support at all. Well, they have a pilot program in some areas where each customer can get a /128. No shit, a whole /128 all to myself.

Re:If we're not going to switch, charge per ip (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 5 months ago | (#47213935)

Comcast is way ahead of you, dude. They're already charging me $3/month per static routed IP address. I'm feeling plenty of "incentive" to move to IPv6, which of course they don't support at all. Well, they have a pilot program in some areas where each customer can get a /128. No shit, a whole /128 all to myself.

I've had IPv6 on Comcast for years with a /64 PD. Not 100% I believe anywhere you can get a /128 you can pull a /64 PD but need a DHCPv6 client to do it.

At very least they are trying to deploy to their entire network. Business customer support is lagging and some areas still lack access. They seem to be genuinely committed to full production quality deployment.

Re:If we're not going to switch, charge per ip (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 5 months ago | (#47213719)

If we're too lazy to switch to ipv6 then they need to just start charging per ip.
$1 per ip per year should be sufficient to cause plenty of ip hoarders to return their stock.
If that's not enough then increase it to $1 per ip per month. Still small enough that
it shouldn't really affect anyone too much. My guess is any computer that can't
absorb a $1/month charge is not an actually computer and should have a private
10.0 number anyways.

Meanwhile disaggregation is not free and carries global costs on routing infrastructure not everyone has the resources to bear. Taking back addresses is like air lifting new deck chairs onto the titanic with much heavier solid lead versions to help the boat sink faster.

http://blog.pierky.com/avoid-c... [pierky.com]

We are quickly approaching the point where it takes more effort to be "lazy" than it does to deploy ipv6.

Re:If we're not going to switch, charge per ip (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#47213747)

Holy shit, that's like sixteen million per year (or month) for every organization on this list [wikipedia.org] .

But to be honest, most of them could probably absorb the annual fee without batting an eye.

"It is now indispensable to make the switch" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212657)

It is indispensable for the summary author to be careful with a thesaurus or find a better translator. A more effortless word would have done just fine.

Why not an address market? (0)

Ken_g6 (775014) | about 5 months ago | (#47212691)

Why does the transition to IPV6 have to happen immediately after all IPV4 addresses are allocated? Why can't someone set up a market for IPV4 addresses that can then be bought and sold? At that point, the transition to IPV6 wouldn't happen very quickly, until the cost for IPV4 addresses exceeded the cost for IPV6 equipment. Then it would happen very quickly.

Re:Why not an address market? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212887)

IPv4 brokers exist, and their main function is to facilitate address block sales.

Google "ip broker" (and ignore the "intellectual property" hits).

Re:Why not an address market? (3, Informative)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 5 months ago | (#47213201)

One of the problems with IPv4 address exhaustion is that routing tables become very complex. Having everyone try to glom a dozen random /24s together to make their local networks will not help.

Also, this is an exponential growth situation, so stopgap measures won't buy much time anyway.

Re:Why not an address market? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213219)

GPS address is the way to go. The altitude would be handy for high rises and satellites.

Straight up trade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212701)

I'll give you 1 each per bumbum girl. Text me, plz.

Perfect, Charter.com doesn't even use IP6 (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 5 months ago | (#47212731)

Not saying it's not possible but all of the cable modem they've put out that is IP6 compatable has it's IP6 disabled, I've feeling there are going to be a lot of accounts on one address (Nat) style.

Not that disappointed, using a HOSTS file and working with IP4 address I've a bit of sense about them, IP6 I couldn't tell you if I've seen it before or not, age does play a bit into this/

Re:Perfect, Charter.com doesn't even use IP6 (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 5 months ago | (#47212849)

I could swear I setup a router for somebody on a charter modem and a ping from a windows box to google.com returned an ipv6 address..
 
Also, I've been using HE ipv6 tunnel since the first ipv6 day(whenver that was) over a charter modem with good results. Traceroutes over ipv6 are often shorter than ipv4.

Re:Perfect, Charter.com doesn't even use IP6 (2)

Sanians (2738917) | about 5 months ago | (#47213171)

Not saying it's not possible but all of the cable modem they've put out that is IP6 compatable has it's IP6 disabled

If you're looking at the modem's status page (192.168.100.1) and it says IPv4-Only, that actually has nothing to do with whether you have IPv6.

The quick and easy way to find out is to just run "tcpdump -n ip6" and see if anything shows up. I didn't realize I had IPv6 until I did that, as the configuration changes I made to Linux to support a Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel rendered it unable to configure itself automatically with my native IPv6. Even after knowing it was there, it took me a couple of days to figure out how to get it working. Seems the OS support for IPv6 isn't completely sorted out, and so you run into a lot of odd things that work in strange ways that you then have to sort out. In particular, if you want to use a Linux box as a router, you have to set up a DHCPv4 client, a DHCPv6 client, a DHCPv4 server, a DHCPv6 server, radvd, and get the kernel parameters sorted out so that it will actually accept router advertisements and route packets at the same time. I eventually gave up and just run pfSense in VirtualBox, but even figuring out how to get that to work wasn't trivial. Thus, I wouldn't conclude that you don't have IPv6 until you see tcpdump fail to show any IPv6 packets after running for ten minutes.

Not that disappointed, using a HOSTS file and working with IP4 address I've a bit of sense about them, IP6 I couldn't tell you if I've seen it before or not,

Well, the good thing is, even if IPv4 disappears from the internet, it'll still exist on your LAN, and so you can continue to access computers on your LAN via IPv4. I ended up configuring the firewall on my computers to block all incoming connections via IPv6, and just use IPv4 when connecting between them via SSH. As such, I'm using IPv6 basically as an internet-only protocol, which seems to make a lot of sense: I have little IPv4 addresses for my little LAN, and big IPv6 addresses for the big internet.

So ask big companies to stop wasting public IPs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47212933)

Does every cellphone, toilet, refrigerator, atm, medical device, desktop terminal, etc etc etc really need a public IP address?

Re:So ask big companies to stop wasting public IPs (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 months ago | (#47212985)

Does every cellphone, toilet, refrigerator, atm, medical device, desktop terminal, etc etc etc really need a public IP address?

How else do you expect the NSA to track them?

Re:So ask big companies to stop wasting public IPs (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213061)

So why doesn't the NSA pump money behind IPv6 rollout?

If there's one organization that SHOULD have an interest in (virtually) unlimited unique IP addresses that allow tracking every single device using one, it's them.

Just Latin America, not Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213031)

Latin America who, pale face?

Net effect of such a policy (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#47213043)

1024 per 6 months per organization.

So what will organizations do? Right. Reserve 1024 IP addresses every 6 months, need them or not, because they MIGHT need a few 1000 down the road at some time. Chances are they don't, but "just in case".

Our government tried to limit water use by cutting off water supply whenever it got scarce. Can you imagine how much water got wasted? The reason is simple, people filled every kind of container (bathrub, sinks, buckets, even coffee cups) whenever water was available, only to drain it whenever water got available again to refill with fresh water...

only AfriNIC is not in address exhaustion mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213045)

Sounds like they need some good old-fashioned democracy, to liberate their IPv4 reserves.

Price (1)

KraxxxZ01 (2445360) | about 5 months ago | (#47213165)

Price = demand / supply There will never be IPv6. If it's up to market.

Slashdot (5, Informative)

Alioth (221270) | about 5 months ago | (#47213173)

These kinds of stories have been popping up on Slashdot for a while, but I note Slashdot *STILL* doesn't have an IPv6 address even though it's a site supposedly run by and for technologists. Meanwhile, Facebook, a site made for teenagers to post selfies on, has had IPv6 support for three or four years.

Re:Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213899)

it's a site supposedly run by and for technologists.

Hah! You must be new here (TM).

Re:Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47214149)

That's because facebook is for an international community, where many are on IPv6 networks, whereas slashdot is mainly read in North America, which is still mostly using IPv4.

I'm waiting for IPv7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47213303)

Waiting for IPv7, I hear its going to be much better.

Re:I'm waiting for IPv7 (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#47213763)

It's going to be implemented as soon as 2214, I hear.

Re:I'm waiting for IPv7 (2)

Minwee (522556) | about 5 months ago | (#47214043)

Waiting for IPv7, I hear its going to be much better.

Whatever you do, don't settle for IPVista.

Re:I'm waiting for IPv7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47214173)

IPv11 is where it's at because it goes to.... 11!

ARIN is not in address exhaustion mode (1)

thue (121682) | about 5 months ago | (#47213343)

> As of now, only AfriNIC is not in address exhaustion mode."

That is not true - ARIN (north America's RiR) is still handing out IPv4's and will continue to do so until down to their last /10.

https://www.arin.net/resources... [arin.net]

They're doing it wrong (3, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about 5 months ago | (#47214035)

This is a solved problem. As one of the smartest and most knowledgeable computer experts in the world, Stephen Fry, has said, all they need to do is register a .uk domain to generate new IP numbers [theregister.co.uk] .

and yet one more new domain... (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 5 months ago | (#47214339)

.idiot

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?