Slashdot: News for Nerds


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

Thank you!

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

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

Dispelling the IPv4 Address Shortage Myth

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the put-on-your-debating-hat dept.

The Internet 505

Zocalo writes "While looking up some WHOIS information at RIPE just now I noticed a couple of articles about the IPv4 address space allocation status. IPv4 Address Space: October 2003 is a short summary by RIPE themselves, and IPv4 - How long have we got? is from July 2003, but has lots more detail and pretty graphs! In short, the "Death of the Internet" due to lack of IP space is a myth, which doesn't bode well for getting IPv6 rolled out any time soon."

cancel ×



Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386752)

Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Take your ass grease pills and put your helmet on
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Commencing countdown, engines on
Check ignition and may God's love shove up you
Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Shove Up
This is Ground Control to Yoda Doll
You've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose butts you tear
Now it's time to leave the suppository if you dare
"This is Yoda Doll to Ground Control
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm stinking in a most peculiar way
And the ass look very different today
For here am I sitting in an ass can
Far inside the butt
My face is turning blue
And there's nothing I can do
Though I'm past one hundred thousand bowels
I'm feeling very still
And I think my buttship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I ream her very much, she knows"
Ground Control to Yoda Doll
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you hear me, Yoda Doll?
Can you....
"Here am I floating in my ass can
Far inside his Moon
My face is turning blue
And there's nothing I can do."

just remember (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386757)

Class E addresses are still under the "Reserved for Future Use" mantra.

Read This! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386763)

Requiem for a Gummi, inspired by The Gummi Bears, written by Celer

Sunni watched the room spin, idly playing with the empty needle still stuck in her arm, until her stomach emptied itself all over the ceiling. Or was that the floor? It was impossible to tell in her current state.

"Come out of there you little bitch!"

Of COURSE it was Gruffi. It was always Gruffi. It was as if he could sense when she was hitting bottom, and liked to sweep in just to remind her that there is always somewhere lower she could go. She sighed and closed her eyes.

"Come out before I bash this door down!" She wouldn't have moved even if she had the energy. Besides, she never bothered to lock her door anymore, it's not like anyone cared about her. Not even that asshole Gusto.

Eventually he realized he could just push the damn thing open instead of shouting. The scowling gummi stood there a moment, silhouetted in the doorway, casting an imposing figure with the sun at his back. It was wasted, as all she could see through her slitted eyelids was two blurry blobs. Occasionally four.

"I knew it. You were snooping around for my stash!" he shouted, looking around the room in disgust. "Look at yourself. You've dipped into your own supply, and look what it got you. That's the first rule, bitch... and the last."

Sunni turned her head to glare at him, and away from the increasingly vile stench emanating from her vomit-soaked pillow. I don't need any lectures from you, she thought, but could only vocalize a slight moan.

Gruffi removed a small vial from his pocket and waved it in her face. "You want some of this? You need some go-juice?" he mocked, chuckling as she suddenly had the energy to sit up and make a wild grab. The purple liquid inside sloshed merrily, taunting her. She didn't want that juice. She NEEDED it. She needed it with every fiber of her being. The dregs she just shot into her veins were useless, only good for staining her yellow fur a telltale purple.

The gummi smiled wickedly. "All you had to do was ask Gruffi for a little hit. Gruffi likes to help those in need." A glint crept into his eye. "But Gruffi has a price, a price you had better be willing to pay." As he spoke, he slipped out of his tunic, making his price throbbingly obvious. He leered at her from the edge of the bed.

Sunni, already on all fours, turned away from Gruffi. "As long as I don't have to see your face," she whispered, but he was already on her. She exited her body for a bit, blocking out what was happening to her physical self and focusing on that sweet sweet rush that would surely be coming soon. Right after Gruffi did, in fact. It was as if her spirit was hovering above the scene, and it was almost comical from that angle. Gruffi's face all contorted, hands on her hips, thrusting away like a little monkey. She watched him slap her ass again and again, saw her yellow fur-covered cheeks turn bright red, but she couldn't feel anything.

It wasn't until he grabbed the back of her head and thrust it into her soggy pillow that she snapped back into reality. She didn't know if it was the lukewarm feeling of liquid against her face, the acrid smell, or the rancid taste that set her off, but she vomited again. She watched it slowly drip down the headboard, fascinated. "You dirty bitch! You dirty little whore!" Gruffi spat, pushing her away in disgust. "At least we shot our loads at the same time. HAH!" He adjusted his green hat.

Sunni turned around, dripping from her mouth and crotch, and grabbed the vial from her tormentor's pocket. Her eyes widened when she realized it was empty. "You aren't worth shit," he laughed. "I needed that just to push me over the edge. I should have given it to you though, a little bouncey-bounce would do wonders with that nice full figure of yours." She raised her fist to slug him but he was already gone.

What? Had she fainted? Blacked out? She couldn't remember. The only thing she could remember was the last time she scored, and where she would need to go if she wanted to survive the night.

"Sunni! Welcome!" Duke Igthorn flashed a Cheshire grin, as he closed the door behind her. "There be six of you cutting up an entire piece... and it be REAL good." Sunni swallowed nervously as he withdrew a vial from his cloak. "Showtime."

4,294,249,958th post. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386768)

The last post possible, Please upgrade to SlashV6 to post more.

IPv6 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386771)

is just a tool to allow nations and corporations to "get control" of the internet (hierarchical geographic routing, anyone?), and for Cisco to sell a bunch of new equipment. It's no surprise that the majority isn't in any hurry to get on board.


Re:IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387055)

though interesting enough, I just did work for the NAV SEA HQ and they are at least half way thru planninng for migration to IPv6 specifically becuase they were afraid of running out of IP addresses with in their own network, hmm tax payers money hard at work indeed.

Grab em! (5, Funny)

zyridium (676524) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386775)

I'll take all the addresses I can :-)

If I get enough for free, we will have to use IPV6..

I think I want a screensaver where each pixel has an ip, and then we can replace X with a simple protocol just sending colors!!

Re:Grab em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386835)

Well, no, you could't replace X with a protocol like that, because X doesn't send pixels (usually), but higher-order primitives like lines and such (to reduce bandwidth consumption and to accomodate hardware acceleration). However, maybe you'd be able to replace VNC, I don't know.

Re:Grab em! (4, Funny)

zyridium (676524) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386860)

X sends higher order primitives, true.

My super-leet replacement would not.

We are talking about replacing X, remember. This is an important aspect of the grand plan.

Should I apply for a patent?

Re:Grab em! (1)

quigonn (80360) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386861)

Great! Thanks, you made my day! :-) If I had mod points, I would mod you up.

This is definitely the weirdest idea how to (ab)use IPv6 I've ever read.

Shhhhh! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386782)

I want IPv6! Don't tell anyone about this.

Good articles (4, Interesting)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386790)

I enjoyed both of the articles. The question I have is this. With the number of networks now being NATed and the such, will we ever truly need something like IPv6? It seems like whe I hear about it, the talk is always that every device will have a unique IP address. But what I see is that large deployments of devices needing IP addresses are more and more being done using 192.* or 10.* addresses. Anyone else have more insight?

Re:Good articles (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386834)

I have a short penis.

Robert Maldo

Re:Good articles (5, Insightful)

lemmen (48986) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386867)

The need for IPv6 is _not_ shortage of IPv4 addresses, but you find it in the extra features in IPv6 (Build-in security, Automated addressing, etc).

Check this presentation: mms:// [webcastrip...enary-2wmv]

Re:Good articles (5, Insightful)

Branc0 (580914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386868)

IP addresses are more and more being done using 192.* or 10.* addresses.

This is done because we have to, not because we want to. If IPv6 was a reality today i would put many machines with a public IP address that today are behind NAT.

Re:Good articles (4, Interesting)

talon77 (410766) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387012)

Nonsense, I think most of us do it because it makes good sense. You don't want your local network having a public IP address, even if you do have a firewall and the best IDP system available. Why create the risk? And even if you have a public server with a public IP address, most firewall's require you to NAT the public IP address anyways if you are nat'ing anything behind the firewall. (usually you nat it to itself, but nat'ing none the less)

Re:Good articles (1)

spitefulcrow (713858) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387077)

Yeah, I would too. NAT routing makes it really hard to do file transfers over the various chat protocols, especially if you have more than one machine you want to do it with. Setting port ranges and forwarding is a major pain in the ass.

Re:Good articles (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386873)

For philosophical reasons, there's some opposition to the mass NAT-ing of the Internet; it tends to break the equality between computers, creating the artificial distinction between servers and clients (just imagine all the pain you have to go through to use your favorite P2P/game/whatever behind a NAT router). IPv6 will solve that, although NAT will probably continue for other reasons.

Re:Good articles (5, Insightful)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386893)

My insight is to say that your right on the mark. NAT killed IPv6. Also, now with the focus more on security, more people are seeing isolated networks with single points of IDS monitoring as solid solutions to security. Hence people put everything on a non routable blocks of IPs and put a snort NAT box at the head end.

Re:Good articles (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386897)

You should rephrase that to "will we ever truly need the address space that something like IPV6 provides?" IPV6 has much more to it than just a huge address size.

See also: []

Re:Good articles (5, Interesting)

Firehawke (50498) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386917)

NAT is a quick and dirty hack that has to be updated for newer, complex protocols-- it wasn't until fairly recently that NAT would actually deal decently with FTP, but it requires mangling the packets.

In the end, the only truly STABLE method for addressing is just to have real IP addresses. NATs just add points of failure and complexity in diagnosis.

It doesn't help that Microsoft's own implementation of the system is nearly impossible to configure-- since NAT is useless for servers, you're only going to see it on clients, and there's your #1 most likely NAT solution to see.

Re:Good articles (1)

jptechnical (644454) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386927)

Sure NAT is the first thing I thought of however I personally dont think NAT is going to be the be-all-end-all of the internet. It is conceivable that one day there could be enough servers or devices (a whole lotta!) that need to be in the dmz and there are limitations with NAT.

What I was always curious about is exactly what Symantec is talking about in their "blended threats" speeches about people walking through NAT like it wasnt there. I would imagine if that is the case there will need to be something more secure to replace it. But honestly I dont know what that could be, or how that will effect the IPv4 vs IPv6 implementation.

Re:Good articles (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386932)

There's not really a shortage as in "we will run out of addresses in X years". But that's because RIPE, IANA, etc. are being so stingy with IP addresses. Many people are not using NAT by choice, they are using it because they can't get a suitably-sized IP block. It's a pain in the ass - small companies with 50 computers are lucky to get 8 IP addresses. They might get another 8 if they demonstrate the need, but then they'd be advertising multiple IP blocks, bloating the internet's routing tables. And if every computer had a globally routable address, we probably would run out of them.

We won't truly need IPv6, but you could say we don't truly need the internet either. IPv6 should simplify things like address assignment and routing. It has some other benefits too, like built-in encryption (IPSEC) and multicasting.

Re:Good articles (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386967)

More details of when people expect the rollout of ipv6 here [] .

Re:Good articles (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387084)

The real driver in the ISP space for migrating to V6 is the potential to do business with the US federal Government. Eventaully, V6 will be a precondition for federal contracts.

Re:Good articles (1)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387085)

I think it just prolongs it. VPNs between companies is becoming very popular. Now you don't need to drop money every month for a connect. A VPN is free. We're now hitting issues with conflicting private addresses and it's not going to get better. You end up having to do NAT in all sorts of places and that gets complex and error prone.

I like the idea of NAT to hide addresses from public view, but unique internal addresses isn't a bad thing. Just NAT the internals to a block of externals.

BTW (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386811)

Using redundant private address allows more than the 2^32 addresses to be created, as long as we have some "hubs" standing between each of the subnets, it's ok...
The real "problem" is that we could eventually get to some private inside private inside private network which could force consummers to pay some toll-fees to access other subnets...

Re:BTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386965)

Such addresses aren't routable. You're not going to be able to connect to a server inside a private inside a private inside a private network, except through some port juggling hacks which you're not likely to get from your commercial ISP.

So.. (4, Insightful)

pirodude (54707) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386813)

So yeah, it'll take 20 years to exhaust the space. Let's wait until 2029 to switch to IPv6.

Or instead start switching now (after all, it'll probably take atleast 10 years to get everything switched over) and not worry about IPs until we're extinct.

Re:So.. (5, Insightful)

leerpm (570963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386901)

According to their study, yes it will take 20 years for 100% of the address space to be used up. But there was a study done (trying to find the URL right now..) saying that once we reach a critical mass of around 85% usage, it will become nearly impossible for an organization to obtain new address space. At this point, we will essentially be in a crisis-state, where no one will be able to request more space.

Re:So.. (1)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386933)

Considering you have been time warped backwards about 6 years, I think IPv6 the least of your worries right now.

That leads me to ask, are there jobs in the future?

Re:So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387070)

That leads me to ask, are there jobs in the future?
Yes. There are many jobs available building and maintaining time machines. All you need is a degree in physics specialising in time travel!

Re:So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387094)

of course not. why do you think he came back here? (though he is off by a year or two for when there where jobs..)

Re:So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386988)

In which case, how about we assign everyone an IPv6 address at birth? Hey, if having one IPv6 address for every device we own is cool, just think how exciting it'll be when you can address people by IPv6 address!

Re:So.. (1)

leerpm (570963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387096)

Exactly. It may take 20 years to completely exhaust the space, but we will have to make the switch way before that happens.

One analogy I have come up with is bathrooms. Say you have 100 bathrooms, and right now 50 of them are busy (assigned). Now you (person #51) come along and want to use one. Is it very hard to find a spare washroom out of the 100, when 50 are free? Probably not too hard. Now think about when there are 90 bathrooms full and person #91 comes along to find a bathroom. It will be a lot harder to find one!

The same analogy can be applied to the IPv4 address space. I am ignoring the fact that you could have a database keeping track of all of the free bathrooms to point people to. But even in the real world, it is not as simple as 'ask and you shall recieve'. There are lag issues between when an organization gives up an address space and wants to move to a different one. Especially in Asia and Europe right now, organizations are having major problems getting enough address space to meet their needs and are having to resort to NAT because they have no choice whatsoever. NAT may work for little users who only run email/web, but it doesn't for people who want to do things like VoIP, and hosting of many other services.

To summarize, we need to migrate to IPv6 well before the address space runs out completely.

Security (0)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386819)

I thought another major pro for IPv6 was security? It has a lot more built into the protocol doesnt it?

If it isn't broken... (3, Interesting)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386821)

The cost of moving to IPv6 is going to be so huge that it will remain a research project until the benefits are correspondingly irresistable.

It will almost always be cheaper to hack IPv4 than to switch to IPv6, and this will be the rule for 99% of IP users.

My prediction is that IPv6 will never come into general use, we will stick with IPv4 for at least 40-50 more years. I have absolutely no idea what will replace IPv4, something will, but it will not be IPv6.

Re:If it isn't broken... (3, Informative)

leerpm (570963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386925)

The US military is moving to solely IPv6 by the end of the decade. The rest of the US government will probably be not too far behind. IPv6 is happening right now, and will replace IPv4.

Re:If it isn't broken... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387011)

IPv8, of course.


Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 40 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

So don't tell me everything is fine and dandy, Pollyanna.

NAT firewalls a huge factor (5, Interesting)

websensei (84861) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386827)

my brother david weekly had this to say about it, which I found interesting:

This message was posted on a mailing list in response to a post that claimed that IPv6 would be widespread by 2005 due to an IPv4 address shortage

NATs, unfortunately, made a need to switch over to IPv6 wholly unnecessary. Such a switchover will probably not happen for at least another ten years. Even ten years ago, we were "running out of" IPv4 space due to incredibly inefficient allocations using the "class based addressing" method - by which your network was deemed to either to likely possess 253 computers, 65,533 computers, or 16,777,213 computers. A specific network was identified by 24, 16, or 8 bits. (The more bits it takes to identify a network, the more networks can exist but at the expense of having fewer unique addresses per network.)

This was quickly determined to be an inordinate waste of addresses and as early as the early 90's folks were predicting we'd rapidly run out of addresses. So class allocations changed a little, and instead of giving an organization with 1000 computers a class B (with 65,533 useable addresses), they'd give them four class C's (with 1012 addresses). This helped stem the tide for a bit and arguably saved the Internet's ass, but it was clear that a more elegant system for identifying networks was needed.

After some backbone technology re-architecting, a new scheme called Classless Internet Domain Routing, or CIDR was introduced, which allowed bit-sized granularity, meaning that a network was identified by exactly as many bits as you needed. Your network could possess 13 computers, or 16,381 computers, and the system could deal with that efficiently. CIDR definitely also helped save the Internet's ass. But the addresses kept on coming; that dang Internet was getting popular very quickly! Pundits started talking about The Great IPv6 changeover, despite the fact that less than one person in 100 on the Internet had an IPv6-enabled operating system.

Then came NATs. While Network Address Translation had been used in many environments, it hadn't really taken off tremendously. Then Linksys released a rather affordable cute little blue box. This piece of hardware let home users plug in several computers to the blue box, configure it with a web interface, jack in their cable/DSL connection and suddenly be sharing Internet access easily with everyone in the house, using one IP address and so fooling the ISP into thinking that there was only one computer using the Internet (many ISPs either don't permit or don't have the infrastructure to give out multiple addresses to a customer). These NATs had a secondary benefit, which was that by default, all incoming connections from the outside are dropped on the floor. I'm not sure Linksys had such "firewalling" in mind when originally designing the device - it's purely a practical issue. I mean, if someone says to a NAT "here's this piece of information" - to who which of the four connected computers should the NAT send it? By default, the NAT will give up and just drop the sorry packet. This means that when you're behind a NAT, you're protected from a whole class of Internet attacks. This realization further drove adoption.

Companies with low IT budgets realized that they wouldn't have to buy extra IP addresses from their ISP (which often came at a premium) and that they could have simple firewalling without a complex configuration. Both companies and people could not see the inherent value in having each of their computers have an Internet-deliverable address, and there was real value (protection) to be had in NOT be addressable from the Internet.

This, again, saved the Internet's ass. Instead of an organization of 1000 needing a class B, wasting hundreds of thousands of IPs, or even four Class Cs, this organization now only needs a single IP address to cover all of its desktops. Now instead of thinking about IP addresses as computer addresses, they have started to become network addresses, which is to say, the WHOLE 32 BITS is the network identifier. While I am sure that there are rapidly going to be more than four billion network-connected devices (which would fill the entire IPv4 address space), I'm not convinced that there are going to be more than, say, 100 million individual *networks* in the next 5-10 years. The transition to NATs is going to completely obviate a near-term requirement for a changeover to IPv6.

There's only one problem: this destroys one of the fundamental principles upon which the Internet was constructed - "Every node is born equal." In theory, the servers that run HotMail should be no different from the computer no your desk. Sure a HotMail computer is probably rackmounted next to dozens of other servers, and probably has a faster Internet connection, but your computer should be able to run a slow version of what runs at HotMail. This is the way that networks used to work and what enabled everything from Yahoo and Google's development, running off of nodes in dorm rooms, to modern P2P networks like RedSwoosh and Kazaa. None of these could operate properly in a NAT environment, because the outside world would have no way of making a spontaneous connection to a sever behind the NAT. If the whole of Stanford campus had been behind one IP, countless companies could not have sprung up, running custom web and email services in dorm rooms.

This rising dichotomy, coupled with the dramatically rising download/upload ratios of broadband (my current cable modem can download 10x faster than it can upload!) means that there are now really two classes of Internet citizens - ones with an IP address and a synchronous connection (servers, broadcasters, "true nodes"), and ones behind a NAT with very little upload capacity (consumers / plebians). This may rapidly turn computers into advanced televisions instead of interactive information sharing devices. Consider the inequality today - most broadband users can listen to Internet radio but can't publish their own streams.

P2P also fundamentally stops working well with high download/upload ratios. On a P2P network, the aggregate download speed is equal to the aggregate upload speed. This means that if everyone on the network can download ten times faster than they can upload, downloads off of a P2P network will be ten times slower than downloads off a server directly. This means that P2P CDNs cannot really succeed, which would be a crying shame.

IPv6 could resolve the addressing concerns, if not the disparity in connection speeds. I personally think it would be great, especially considering how it could potentially bring multicast to the masses. But the adoption is just not there. I run a colocation site and we've been asking our upstream ISP, who is one of the world's leading IPv6 providers (and who offers a free IPv6 tunnel broker), if they would permit routing of IPv6 traffic over our existing connection. "Any moment now" they've been saying. So deployment is nearly non-existant. Implementations are, too - Microsoft only offered an alpha-quality IPv6 stack for Windows 2000 from an obscure location on the Microsoft Research site. The fact that it didn't come standard on Windows XP should speak volumes; but it is available on the WindowsUpdate site to users of XP. (The only thing that bugs me is that now it does TWO DNS resolves for every name - first for the AAAA record, then for the A record!) Windows98/ME and Windows 2000 users almost assuredly can't do IPv6, and only Windows XP customers who have upgraded can, so I'm guessing that it's still less than 1% of the desktops out there that can do IPv6.

All of this is a long way of saying "Don't hold your breath for massive IPv6 deployment by 2005." :)

Re:NAT firewalls a huge factor (1)

hey (83763) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386884)

Companies with low IT budgets realized that they wouldn't have to buy extra IP addresses from their ISP (which often came at a premium) and that...

IPv6 would remove the practice of ISPs selling
IP address at a premium. For that alone its worth it. Would make for more grassroots servers.

Re:NAT firewalls a huge factor (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387028)

Would make for more grassroots servers.

But you can set up your own grassroots server now, even with NAT. At worst, if you want to set up more than one server providing the same service, you run some on non-standard ports and have your gateway/NAT box forward the connections based on port. True, then people have to remember to use the port as well - but you could set the "standard" one to list all available services.

Alternatively, if you host each on a seperate domain name, you could set up some sort of controller that forwarded the requests to the appropriate interal box & port transparently.

In short, the IP address restrictions are easily worked around - it's the upstream bandwidth that's the fundamental limit. My current home connection is 256Kbps upstream, and nothing I do can change that. That limits music streaming, for example, to one stream, without dropping quality to an imho unacceptably low level.

Re:NAT firewalls a huge factor (2, Insightful)

Vargasan (610063) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387046)

"IPv6 would remove the practice of ISPs selling
IP address at a premium. For that alone its worth it. Would make for more grassroots servers."

Or they could just keep selling IPs at premium and make even MORE money.

You have to think like a corporation, not like a hopeful user.

A presentation about this 'shortage'. (1)

lemmen (48986) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386830)

A presentation at the latest RIPE meeting can be found here [webcastrip...enary-2wmv] .
It was very interesting... :)

IPv6 isn't just for bigger addresses (3, Insightful)

lildogie (54998) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386837)

IPv6 also provides security infrastructure.

Imagine a world where you can trust the "from" IP address in a packet.

Re:IPv6 isn't just for bigger addresses (0)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386851)

Can anyone post a link to how this is done, I mean, how can the from address be for sure? The same technique for spoofing ip4 could still be done with the right tools couldnt it?

Re:IPv6 isn't just for bigger addresses (1)

Woy (606550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386929)

I'd say that with IPv6 you can send up your wire ANY packet you want (at least with open source OS and drivers). However, packets with source IP's that don't match the subnet will probably be dropped at the routers.

Re:IPv6 isn't just for bigger addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386997)

Yes, however, the article is about dispelling the ip shortage myth of IPv4, which is bullshit.

IOW, if you try to push for IPv6, do not start your argumentation by ".. in a couple of months, we'll have a shortage of addresses with the IPv4 standard."

I'm not sure i would like a world where we could trust the from IP of all packets sent. That would effectively, eliminate anonimity on the net. ;-)

Different Problems? (4, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386838)

I thought the current issue with IPv4 was not the limited number of ip addresses, but the increased routing tables brought on by classless routing? These days, the central routers on the Internet have routing tables which are huge, which must cost someone somewhere to upgrade them.

IPv6 was supposed to deal with this issue as much as it dealt with the number of ip addresses available, in that it would revert back to a semi class based routing set, with ISPs being assigned a range of addresses.

Thats how I understood it when I asked anyhow.

Re:Different Problems? (2, Interesting)

leerpm (570963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386987)

Yes, the size of the routing tables is one more reason for the upgrade to IPv6. But there are a few problems with IPv6 that still need to be worked out before we can say for sure that the routing tables are going to get much smaller. The biggest one so far is the issue of multi-homing (having more than one provider to your network). No one solution has come forward that isn't without some significant disadvantages over the current way it is done in IPv4.

Re:Different Problems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387056)

It's easier to wait 18 months for the problem to go away, than to upgrade all the network infrastructure. Besides, you don't want to put all those network hardware companies out of a job, do you?

"Uncertainties" (2, Insightful)

Andorion (526481) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386842)

The entire second article is null and void for this reason, quoted from the article:

Of course such projections are based on the underlying assumption that tomorrow will be much like today, and the visible changes that have occurred in the past will smoothly translate to continued change in the future. There are some obvious weaknesses in this assumption, and many events could disrupt this prediction.

The argument that we're going to run out of space is based on the assumption that in the (near) future MANY MANY household appliances and objects which don't currently have anything to do with the internet are going to become attached to it.


Re:"Uncertainties" (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386966)

I *really* can't see an RIR agreeing to assign the huge numbers of IPs that would be required to give each Internet enabled household appliance or phone a DHCP address for the duration of the connection, let alone a static IP, when NAT is a viable option.

I think we are much more likely to see the first widescale commercial IPv6 deployments in the fields of VoIP, mobile Internet devices and household devices, communicating via a gateway to the IPv4 Internet. Hopefully this will then provide the catalyst necessary to start the global deployment of IPv6 so we can all start to benefit from the enhanced features and security that it offers.

Re:"Uncertainties" (1)

Andorion (526481) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387060)

Hrrm... you don't think large corporations or even our government would see any benefit in having a static ID associated with not only every appliance, but with every household?


Re:"Uncertainties" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386998)

Nonsense! I do not now, nor will I ever want my "household appliances" to have routable ip addresses. At most I might let them talk to a central server on my internal network, but I highly doubt it. I really don't want to run Windows Update on my refrigerator.

Re:"Uncertainties" (1)

Andorion (526481) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387033)

You might not want to, but you might eventually have to because every "intelligent" model sold (except the old iceboxes we have today) will require just that.


I for one welcome our new IPv6 overlords! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386844)


this is a joke from the simpsons

Why the rush? (1)

Vidar Leathershod (41663) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386854)

I don't see any reason to rush to IPv6. With all the NATing going on, and all the old orgs that have way more ip space than they need, IPv4 should last a long time. By the time we need something different, who is to say that IPv6 will be the best solution.

There are two groups that seem to want to push IPv6. One group is made up of tech geeks, who can't sit still and enjoy life with IPv4. The scary group are the big brothers of the world, who would like nothing more than to have individually traceable numbers to an exact device, no currency that lacks tracking and stupid colors (i.e. not green), and black boxes in vehicles supposedly for "tolls" but actually for tracking the citizenry. Oh, and the limiting of gun ownership to "militias" organized by the state. Then we can finally be just like the Soviet Union was, which is their plan anyway.

Exactly why we need Reagan back, to drive these pinkos back into their caves. :)


Re:Why the rush? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387067)

I have yet to see one of these evil people you talk about endorsing IPv6. It's just the tech geeks, and hell, we'll endorse anything if it means more gadgets to play with. Come on, admit it, you like flashing lights and pushing buttons as much as the rest of us.

Re:Why the rush? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387087)

Oh, yeah, the whole world is turning into the Soviet Union. Right. Wake me up when John Ashcroft starts the mass executions of political prisoners.

Small problem... (1)

dubdays (410710) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386856)

Assuming a smooth continuity of growth in demand where growth rates are proportional to the size of the Internet, and assuming a continuation of the current utilization efficiency levels in the Internet, and assuming a continuing balance between public address utilization and various forms of address compression, and assuming the absence of highly disruptive events, then it would appear that the IPv4 world, in terms of address availability, could continue for another two decades or so without reaching any fixed boundary. Yeah, two decades if everyone's pacemaker isn't running Apache on a wireless connection by then.

IPv6 = loss of privacy (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386872)

One thing that has helped the Internet grow is a perception of privacy and anonymity. Just look at how people are worried about cookies.

Whatever it's other advantages, IPv6 will greatly reduce privacy. One partion of the 128 bit source will be your MAC, there for all to see and log.

Dialup and DHCP give some piercable measure of anonymity. Somebody has to approach your ISP and get the logs manually.

Re:IPv6 = loss of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386913)

uh, no. I can clearly see you have no knowledge of why a MAC address exists. The MAC address only exists within your local LAN. The IP address is a layer of abstraction higher. Learn OSI Layers 2 and 3 and you'll understand the difference.

Re:IPv6 = loss of privacy (1)

iamsure (66666) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386996)

Uh, no, you didn't do your research. The parent poster was correct - the IPv6 address DOES include the MAC address, including during full network routing - not just local routing like in IPv4.

In IPv6, the MAC is included in the IP address - as you said, on that higher layer.

Re:IPv6 = loss of privacy (1)

Xner (96363) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387021)

Besides, there is a standard (as much as anything that is as poorly diffused as IPv6 can have substandards) that generates a new throwaway address each time interval if you are truly worried about people on the internet figuring out your MAC adress. I cant remember the name/number but it is included in the WinXP stack.
After all, we wouldnt want the people at slashdot to know you run a cheapo Realtek card would we?

TROLL The world! TROLL the world! (0)

mekkab (133181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387015)

You are either ignorant of the plethora of IPv6 address varaitions (no, it doesn't have to include your MAC address! And even if it did- SFW?! Hey, here's the MAC of my cable modem: 000B06A75742! FIND ME.) or just trolling.
My Guess? Trolling.

Excuse me, IPv6 reducing privacy?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Go learn about IPsec and IPv6 because I can't waste my time on you.

Re:IPv6 = loss of privacy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387016)

Using the MAC address is only one way to assign addresses, and MAC addresses can be changed. RFC 3041 [] : "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6" gives another, based on frequently changing random addresses.

Even with static addresses, ISP logs would still be necessary to see who owns them. You might be able to find out some other way, like if you have logs of them logging into a web site with a username or email address - but this works for dynamic addresses too.

Re:IPv6 = loss of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387054)

I'd advise you to have a look at RFC 3041 [] . It deals with this very issue.

Basically, the RFC describes a method to use address es in stateless autoconfig which change over time. Takes care of the privacy issue.

Any more questions?

IPv8 (1)

apoplectic (711437) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386877)

Let's just forego IPv6 all together and wait for IPv8 to set in.

Re:IPv8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386980)

You mean Microsoft IP for Objects 2032...

Myth? (1)

dcs (42578) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386892)

Well, it certainly doesn't look like a myth to me, who have been involved in the process of acquiring a range of IP addresses.

NAT sucks (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386903)

NAT sucks. I want to be able to reach any computer on my LAN from the outside by its own IP address. So I hope IPv6 is implemented sooner rather than later.

But of course that won't come out of the US. The US has 70% of the IP addresses, there won't be a shortage there any time soon. Asia doesn't really have another option though. This will soon be yet another area in which the US lags behind the world.

Re:NAT sucks (1)

4of12 (97621) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387080)

It does suck and it's pushing the technology in a strange direction.

If you want to get access to inside your LAN and you don't have some official VPN client, etc., you have to set up your internal machine to actively poke out on ports 80 or 443 to some relay point for "further instructions" on how to establish a VPN. That's assuming the relay point is writable.

As others have noted, the "protections" and IP multiplication benefits of NAT have had a side effect of choking information flow and flexibility.

why dont we just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7386904)

why dont we just beat up ppl that arent using their ips, and take their ips from them?? Spammers are a good first fact we can start w/ the ppl who posted that gummie bear and yoda doll comment earlier on this topic....

Re:why dont we just... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387065)

if i ever meet you I WILL KICK YOUR ASS and steal your ip addresses.

Are there no other reasons to switch? (1)

That_Dan_Guy (589967) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386910)

I thought IPv6 was supposed to help with the large internet routing tables and help deal with some security issues. Its been awhile since I read up on this since I deal so much in IPv4 that it just hasn't been necassary for me to readup on v6 in awhile. Hmmm... Perhaps thats why we aren't going to upgrade, we're all too busy dealing with v4....

It's HAVE, silly.. (0)

Rostin (691447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386916)

How long do we HAVE?

well, guess we'll have to wait (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386921)

for IPv6

Necessity is the mother of invention, and we don't need it.

IPv6 here we come! (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386930)

no seriously, if Walmart and the DoD make an effort it'll happen. (its a joke laugh) Whats more likely is that China or some other country with a highly centralized internet setup will be the first to push IPv6 all the way. Its already been done on smaller scales, so maybe someone can explain where the costs are in pushing it worldwide (besides anything hardware related)?

[nigger guide]I knew that ipv6 was a bad idea :) (-1)

Captain Goatse (715400) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386931)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your nigger will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.


You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial
configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately on unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off,
ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work
best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners
use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller,
Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners
call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's
head, by the way.


Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this
apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably
call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere
near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women,
not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat


Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The
rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a
nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel
under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt
escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be
safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.


Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't
deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other
niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if
all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers
steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should
never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how
long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.


Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to
make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to
sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation,
encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white
man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can
before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day
indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 55 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start
work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light


Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include:

1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or
whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing.

2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers
watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one).

3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's
shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his
head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit.

4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.


A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are
sold as "The Shitskin".


What you have there is a "wigger".


They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred
genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it.


And you were expecting what?


This is normal.


Where are we, Wonderland? You'll have a lot of trouble getting it to fornicate with *other* niggers.


I don't really understand the question ("better quality of nigger"...?WTF?)

How about... (1)

zyridium (676524) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386945)

We scrap IP totally and all band together to create a big token ring network?

Re:How about... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387081)

IP can run on top of Token Ring, Stupid. Don't confuse IP with Ethernet, Dummy.

Whats the chance? (1)

Froze (398171) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386950)

That when IPV6 goes official that the gorverning body would consider handing out a block (maybe 256 addys) to every person. These are assigned permanently and can then be your phone number, personal webspace, permanent email address, etc. I think this would be really nice,

Anyone care to comment on their perceived pros and cons to this idea?

Re:Whats the chance? (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387057)

Probably none since IPv6 allocations don't work that way, plus can you imagine having a routing table with over six *billion* entries? You can however do some nice tricks with DNS to achieve a similar result; essentially you split the DNS record into two halves, one being the ISP and the other being your "private" address. If you have multiple ISPs then the private address can remain the same while you update the ISP part as required. It was intended as an enhancement to the DNS round-robin loadsharing technique, but can be used for other things too.

Re:Whats the chance? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387064)

Anyone care to comment on their perceived pros and cons to this idea?

Why would I need an IP tied to my webspace, anyway? Most people don't care enough to justify it, and it's more complicated than just running some shared servers with blogs, etc.

The question is wrong... (2, Funny)

lgeezer (168976) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386960)

If ipv4 isn't broke, then there's no need to fix it with ipv6: instead, the time is used to allow ipv6 killer apps (your fridge telling your tv that you need more milk) to further mature. Like BBSes and JaNET had Internet gateways, there'll eventually be gateways between ipv4 and ipv6 Internets, and it'll suddenly be with us as if it always had been.

About then we should be discussing whether housebricks should have IP addresses to report being dug through, or whether being able to detect movement means it could detect the movement from soundwaves, people talking. I can only hope I don't have to shout into each brick the serial number from the inevitable shrinkwrap license.

I'd rather kill that gNAT (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386984)

Being behind behind NAT boxes has greatly reduced the public address space needed by many I'm sure, but it cripples our ability to function as equals on the net.
Just as there have been moves to allow people to retain a phone number when changing cellular carriers, Having a permanent IP (or range of IPs) could have many uses.

All willing to have IPs starting with something along the lines of a social security number please raise your left foot. All spammers wanting my IPs, raise both feet.

biggest problem (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386989)

Can't have a 1 to 1 mapping of all domain names to unique ip's.

Imagine a world where everyone did have a homepage on a unique machine w/ no redirecting depending on the ip or hostname or other network tricks.

Nat will never solve that. It'd solve really silly things like, tracking who connects to what and how. And we wouldn't have silly kludges of solutions, like HTTP 1.1's Host: thing.

Put up a new website? Just give it another ip! And do an ip mask in apache.

IPv6 will be adopted, just not in USA first (5, Interesting)

sdxxx (471771) | more than 10 years ago | (#7386990)

IPv6 will eventually be adopted, because the way IPv4 addresses are allocated, many regions of the world *do* have a shortage of addresses. In particular, Asia has a serious shortage of IPv4 addresses. In fact, I know of people who run IPv6-only machines in Japan (because there are 6to4 addresses that allow you to reach IPv4 servers with approximately the same functionality as NAT).

Moreover, as people deploy new infrastructure, they may be forced to use IPv6. For example, at some point every cell phone is going to have a routable IP address--and that is definitely going to require IPv6.

So while North American desktop machines are unlikely to be switched to IPv6 any time soon, it will happen in other parts of the world and for other types of hardware.

*sigh* (1)

rakolam (138019) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387003)

Though I realize that this type of study is used to answer the "when" of the IPv4 sky-is-falling question, it will ultimately be used to try and wangle more IPs than one necessarily needs out of their ISP. Keep in mind this statement before you go running off to your LIR with a printout of the article clenched in your fist:
"The current RIR and LIR distribution model has been very effective in limiting the amount of accumulation of address space in idle holding pools, and in allocating addresses based on efficiency of utilization and conformance to a workable hierarchical model of address-based routing"
The point being that if more stringent guidelines for IP justification weren't in place, then they'd run out faster. Too many companies assume they should be able to have a class B, "just because".

More than just address space... (1, Insightful)

f1ipf10p (676890) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387010)

While NAT and CIDR made a big difference on the ability to make IPv4 address space last longer, the intrinsic use of IPSec and auto-renumbering features of IPv6 may be enough to get some moving toward it. And they are only two of the benefits.

The argument to stay on IPv4 sounds a lot like the argument to stay with SNA... We've got it, we know it, we don't know what else we need from it...

I'm ready for IPv6 when my first customer wants it. Not a day sooner, not a day later.

P.S. - LU 6.2 to IPv4 with 3172 was pre OSA. Now I can put IPv4 or IPv6 on the host.

imho (2, Funny)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387020)

it's a race between IPv6 and *NIX running out of timestamp room in an int... only 3227004721 seconds to go!

04 (3, Funny)

Malicious (567158) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387024)

While we're at it, we should switch to a 5 digit date for the year. Because you know it's going to be Y2k all over again in the year 9999.

IPv6 more necessary than thought (4, Insightful)

mnmn (145599) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387042)

At a certain point in the middle of the last decade, everyone thought they would run out of IP addresses. Work was then put into routers and firewalls to bring to the masses the CIDR and NAT to stem the tide. Now on cisco routers you can do fancy port forwarding to use several servers behind one IP. All this work however could have been replaced by investing in ipv6. The fact that ipv6 is not being implemented means investment is being put into a scheme in which people will eventually run out of IP addresses, while there is a complete alternative available.

The single biggest damaging factor of ipv4 is the fact that you cant really run servers behind it. There are already ISPs in many countries that provide service from behind a NAT firewall. This kills many people's freedom of speech and the spirit of the Internet where everyone had their own servers and ran whatever they wanted.

The second damaging factor of the ipv4 is the control that IANA has. Both ICANN and IANA have been used politically and now we have many American ISPs churning out 4 IPs per person and 64 IPs per company, mostly going to waste while ISPs in some countrys like Pakistan's PakNET have 100,000 customers behind one IP none of whom can run their own servers.

ipv6 can fix all these problems in one fell swoop, simplify routing enormously and introduce IPSec and other security technologies.

Not a myth (1)

geekmetal (682313) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387047)

It has been suggested that Asia will experience an IPv4 address shortage before other regions. This is simply not true. This is because addresses are distributed in a co-ordinated fashion from a single global pool, and there is no system whereby that pool is exclusively divided among, or pre-allocated to, different countries or regions. Through the current system of address administration, IP addresses are allocated according to immediate need wherever that need is demonstrated and it is simply not possible for isolated "shortages" to exist.

While it true that the those few articles which predicted a shortage in Asia were wrongly presented, the point is that the given the rate at which the Asian countries are growing in their requirements for IP space we will see shortage and possible poilitical fallouts. To call the shortage a myth is wrong

Efficiency... (1)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387058)

I think that moving to IPv6 is really going in the wrong direction. Sure, it would be great to have an IP address available for every molecule in the universe, but the side-effect of addresses like fec0:02::0060:1dff:ff1e:26ee is not worth it. It's hard enough to remember a dozen IPv4 addresses, their associated subnet masks, and various DNS servers, gateways, etc. The answer is efficient use of the space we have. It used to be easy to get addresses; a school district I used to work for probably had 300 unused IP's...and two used ones. If we start taking back those unused addresses, we can go a lot, lot longer with the address space we have.

IP Addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7387066)

Why would any of the devices in my house have to have a global IP address? Why would I want someone half way around the world accessing my toaster.

This is why we have firewalls and routers. The number of IP addresses is unlimited, but the number of global IP addresses are limited.

It sounds like someone want to sell a new product.

Usage vs. allocations (2, Insightful)

cperciva (102828) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387068)

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The author is looking at the rate of IPv4 address allocation, and extrapolating future growth based on the current rate. This is a severely flawed methodology, because it does not take into account efficiency of utilization.

Ten years ago, as the author notes, most networks used around 1% of their allocated IP addresses. Now, networks are expected to use over 50% of their addresses before they can receive a larger allocation. As a result, while the number of *allocated* addresses has not been growing rapidly, the number of *used* addresses certainly has.

Unfortunately, utilization efficiency is bounded -- it's hard to use more than 100% of your allocated IP addresses. As a result, the rate at which IP addresses are allocated is likely to take a sharp turn upwards, as organizations which until now have been making efficiency improvements, find that they really do need a larger address allocation.

One of the primary motivations (1)

Jason Hood (721277) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387079)

for implementing ipv6 is not necessarily that we will run out of IPs but that IPs will become too expensive for ordinary people and small businesses. Jason

What about being proactive? (1)

GuardianKnight (80165) | more than 10 years ago | (#7387089)

Bottom line is we have some time before we run out of IP addresses for Public use. So do we need to change tomorrow? No.

But, why not be proactive. I can't tell you how many times at work being proactive has saved our butts. However, I can tell you how screwed we were when we had to "react". So why not start moving over? It can be done slowly, and not rushed.

Just my $.02
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account