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!

IPv4 Unallocated Addresses Exhausted by 2010

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-room-to-grow dept.

The Internet 419

An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica is reporting on how the unallocated IPv4 address pool could run out as soon as 2010. The IPv4 Address Report gives details on just how fast the available pool of IPv4 addresses is diminishing. Will ISPs be moving towards IPv6 any time soon? Or will IPv4 exhaustion become the next Y2K?"

cancel ×

419 comments

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

From TFA: free pr0n! (4, Interesting)

Rodness (168429) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263601)

Despite the best efforts of organizations like ARIN, the simple fact is that, compared to IPv4, IPv6 gives you access to very little content and very few users. So far, nobody has been able to get past this chicken-and-egg issue, although a The Great IPv6 Experiment [ipv6experiment.com] proposes to change this by giving away free access to "10 gigabytes of the most popular 'adult entertainment,'" but only over IPv6.

Is IPv6 so unappealing that they've gotta bribe people with pr0n to use it?

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (4, Funny)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263681)

Well duh, why do you think people got on the Internet in the first place? Some military experiment? pffffffft. It's all about the pr0n!

free pr0n, but... (1)

cultrhetor (961872) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264365)

Don't forget complaining, the other half of the equation! You and the other sixty thousand _____ enthusiasts in the world coming together to bitch and moan about obscure details related to your annoyance with ______ manufacturers' refusal to implement your brilliant plan that will fix everything and raise _____ back up to its former heights of glory, when sixty-one thousand people were on the board.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (3, Insightful)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263741)

Is IPv6 so unappealing that they've gotta bribe people with pr0n to use it?

With one of the bigger 'features' of IPv6 being the possibility of assigning and tracking users individually with the huge number of addresses - I suspect it does not play into the current (sorta) anonymous surfing mindset folks have today. (Not that anyone is truly anonymous on the web) Once you have to slap down your address to access the content, I can see why people might not be interested.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263871)

That's really just not true. With IPv6, you can get a lot more anonymity than you have now with IPv4. v6 has all sorts of special provisions for randomly assigning addresses, letting you reset them when you want, so that you can appear to be a new user in the middle of a browsing session. That's tough to do with IPv4; even if you try a DHCP release-and-renew from your ISP, generally they won't issue you a new address until the other one has expired.

IPv6 doesn't force you to give up any privacy, and there's no 'user serialization' unless you buy into it voluntarily.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (3, Insightful)

gronofer (838299) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264401)

v6 has all sorts of special provisions for randomly assigning addresses
I've read that with IPv6 the end user would be allocated a block of addresses, instead of getting a single IPv4 address and having to resort to NAT. Presumably this random assignment of addresses would be from the addresses in this block? I don't think this would necessarily give any anonymity, since it may turn out to be easy to identify the block size and alignment and thus be easy to determine that the addresses are associated.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (5, Informative)

mengel (13619) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263789)

The problem is, that claim makes no senses whatsoever. The IPv4 addresses are a subset of the IPv6 space -- you can get to all of the IPv4 systems from an IPv6 network.

There are two issues:

  1. Switching protocols
  2. Getting IPv6 addresses
You can use the IPv4 subset of the IPv6 address space, and everyone can still talk to everyone while you convert. It's only the folks that have IPV6 addresses before the IPv4 users have migrated that become unreachable by anyone.

So the online businesses are going to want to be the last ones to switch, so that their customers don't become unable to reach them.

But anyway, IPV6 gives you access to all the same content.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264159)

With the immense popularity of peer-to-peer communication such as bittorrent, it's a pretty hard sell to say that you have access to the same content UNLESS it's peer-to-peer. Increasingly, services such as Steam use peer-to-peer to transfer large files. There is little chance that this trend will come to an abrupt halt, so most likely the demand to be reachable by all of those IPv4 users will remain high.

Also, a business that needs to be reachable over the internet wouldn't want to sacrifice access by the majority of the internet public in order to aspire to the higher ideal of IPv6.

As much as I like the idea of IPv6 things like this are real hinderances to its adoption.

-Lee

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264195)

I'd imagine any buisness would have an IPv6 address AND an IPv4 address, atleast untill the IPv4 address was dragged away from their cold dead hands.

Maybe, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263795)

Look at the map [slashdot.org] and tell me we're not low on space. Yeah, you can reshuffle, but that just buys us more time; you've still got to update someday.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (3, Insightful)

ekhben (628371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263815)

Is IPv6 so unappealing that they've gotta bribe people with pr0n to use it?

It's not unappealing, it's totally irrelevant to end-users. There's no market out there asking for IPv6 network access. ISPs and their upstream providers thus have no increase in revenue if they deploy IPv6, but that deployment will cost them real money -- v6 capable routers need much more storage and processing, for instance -- and so there's real financial incentive to avoid IPv6. Offering free pr0n might be a way to make the difference relevant to end-users and thus provide demand and revenue, but I kind of doubt that it's enough.

When end-users are getting IPv6 or private address IPv4 to the door, and a NAT exchange at the ISP, and their VOIP/game/spyware breaks, there will be financial motive at all levels. Being able to offer a full and uncrippled Internet experience will be the value-add.

But expect a period of chaos as ISPs try to barter IPv4 addresses around, and failing that, try to steal them.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (4, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264125)

There's also significant financial incentive to keep the limited address space of IPv4. Want a static IP address or additional IP addresses? Fork over the cash, baby!

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (3, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264199)

There's no market out there asking for IPv6 network access. ISPs and their upstream providers thus have no increase in revenue if they deploy IPv6, but that deployment will cost them real money -- v6 capable routers need much more storage and processing, for instance -- and so there's real financial incentive to avoid IPv6.

Routers that have been capable of supporting IPv4/IPv6 dual stack have been available for a long time now so unless you're a tiny ISP that has no budget for life-cycle upgrades it's very likely your kit is already capable of running IPv6. Now, whether or not your engineering staff is trained in supporting IPv6 is another story. Within 5-10 years though ISPs will have very little excuse to NOT support IPv6 since they will have replaced any antiquated IPv4-only equipment as it is end-of-lifed. US Federal Government agencies have a mandate to support IPv6 by June 2008 so it has been spurring a lot of vendors to get their shit in order and either upgrade their products to support IPv6 or face not being able to sell to one of their largest customers.

Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (2, Funny)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264041)

"Is IPv6 so unappealing that they've gotta bribe people with pr0n to use it?"

It worked with IPv4.
Although I shudder to think back to the days of downloading pr0n on a 14.4k modem!

Sky is falling!! The sky is falling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264233)

Sky is falling!! The sky is falling
Run! Run!!
The world is coming to an end ... Women and Minorities hardest hit.

We are running out of IP addresses (which we probably aren't) and we have a solution for it.

The World is ending Run Run

it's tghe next Y2k (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263603)

i've been hearing about how ip4 will run out in the next 5 years for the last TEN years.

Re:it's tghe next Y2k (5, Funny)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263733)

IPv4 will be exhausted at around the same time as the first commercial fusion power plant is started and the release of Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:it's tghe next Y2k (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263833)

> i've been hearing about how ip4 will run out in the next 5 years for the last TEN years.

We've been in various stages of Imminent Death of the Net Predicted [catb.org] for at least 25 years. Y2K was merely the last version, and running out of IPv4 is merely the current version.

Just wait until we abandon CSS in order to ensure that an entire page can be rendered by through a single TCP/IPv6 connection. Domain names with vowels! HTML with serifed fonts! Imminent Death of Web 2.0 predicted!

Re:it's tghe next Y2k (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264039)

Predictions about the exhaustion of a scarce resource are usually bogus, because they can't take the complex supply and demand interactions into account which are influenced by the shrinking of the rest of the finite resource. Nevertheless, we will someday run out of IPv4 addresses, unless we accept that huge parts of the internet will be behind NATs. There simply are more than 4 billion people in the world and only 4 billion public IP addresses to go around (and due to allocation inefficiencies, the number of actually usable IP addresses is much lower and they are allocated with a bias towards the developed countries.)

IMHO IPv6 tries to improve too many things in one go. That makes the adoption rate slow, the learning curve steep and the risk high. Who wants to bet that we're going to see lots of exploits targeted at IPv6 networks which work because the addressing scheme is different, local address allocation works differently, protocol features aren't thought through and are therefore dangerous (like the IPv6 version of "source routing") and hasty implementations of nice features are rarely used (multicasting anyone?) and thus not tested well.

Re:it's tghe next Y2k (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264301)

Supply and demand are less important than improvements in efficiency, productivity, and technology. Two prime examples: oil and food. Thomas Malthus predicted mass famines. His math was right, but he didn't predict the steel plow, tractors, selective breeding, improved fertilizer, etc. Since the 1960s, people have been predicting that the world will run out of oil within 10 years. But improved extraction techniques have resulted in a steady increase in proven oil reserves. (supply and demand also come into play here; high oil prices make it economically feasible to drill in smaller oil fields).

Now the math says that IPv4 will run out. It's hard to see how you can increase productivity of a 32-bit number (aside from NAT like solutions). But unlike oil and food, it has a replacement in IPv6

Re:it's tghe next Y2k (3, Funny)

Jonny0stars (1046644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264091)

I thinks its all a big con to waste china's money.
Besides by the time they bother to implement it it will all fall apart with the year 2038 problem anyway.

Re:it's tghe next Y2k (5, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264097)

i've been hearing about how ip4 will run out in the next 5 years for the last TEN years.

Well, it would have run out a lot faster, had it not been for CIDR [wikipedia.org] , which allowed addresses to be allocated more efficiently. However that -- like proposals to re-allocate unused space in some of the old corporate A-blocks -- slowed the bleeding but doesn't really do anything about the real problem.

Here we go again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263605)

The death knell of IPv4 has been ringing a long time.

God Smack Your Ass !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263613)



God Smack Your Ass !!

everything is going to be ok (5, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263619)

I bet that people will be bored of the internet by then

Worse than Y2K (4, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263625)

Y2K was a bug which was easily solved. This is an infrastructure defect which has an available, but expensive, solution.

It will be expensive to make a major shift to IPv6, which is why it's taking so long.

Until the complete exhaustion of all IPv4 addresses is an immanent threat the change will not happen, much like Y2K.

Re:Worse than Y2K (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263933)

Y2K was a bug which was easily solved.

You have an interesting concept of "easy" ...

Re:Worse than Y2K (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263939)

It's already happening. The installed base of systems that can handle IPv6 is growing all the time. At virtually no cost. But as you say, people aren't going to switch as long as it is only an eminent problem.

Re:Worse than Y2K (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263971)

imminent. Damn. It.

Re:Worse than Y2K (2, Insightful)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263991)

I don't think it will be as frightening as people think.

After all, most recent network hardware are more or less ready to make the transition, and anyone running Windows 2000 Professional or later, MacOS X variants, and more recent Linux distributions could make the jump to IPv6 either natively or by installing a patch program.

Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (5, Interesting)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263631)

They could delay the inevitable by reallocating existing IPv4 space more efficiently. Many old/historical allocations are inefficient. Apple Computer, for example, has all of the 17.x.x.x space, comprising 256^3 = more than 16 million addresses, which is just plain absurd in this day and age.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (1)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263689)

They could delay the inevitable by reallocating existing IPv4 space more efficiently. Many old/historical allocations are inefficient. Apple Computer, for example, has all of the 17.x.x.x space, comprising 256^3 = more than 16 million addresses, which is just plain absurd in this day and age.


This would meet with more resistance, and would be harder to do, than just switching to IPv6.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (2, Insightful)

bradkittenbrink (608877) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264077)

That, and the fact that it would only buy us like 2 years. /me scuttles off to go find link.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263773)

And all the other networks (*cough* MIT *cough*) that are hoarding them for no good reason. This entire discussion, happening over and over and over again only on Slashdot it seems, is pointless. We aren't running out of space -- it's just over allocated.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (5, Insightful)

Tatarize (682683) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263837)

No reason? Ahem, those IP addresses are going to get *VERY* valuable in about 3 years apparently.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263843)

We aren't running out of space -- it's just over allocated.

Curiously, that's just what's happening with world resources: Food, money, land, etc. A few bunch of greedy guys are ruining everything for the rest of us.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264275)

Why all the man-hating. I bet those greedy guys would be less grabby if their wives weren't shrews.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264361)

That's karma in action.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263781)

Apple Computer, for example, has all of the 17.x.x.x space,
And there are plenty of others with Class A allocations (/8). [wikipedia.org] Probably the RSRE has several thousand IP addresses per employee!

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (4, Interesting)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263817)

You and what army of lawyers? :-)

Class A blocks were one of the benefits of being a Internet pioneer. Why should they give them up?

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (3, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263925)

Apple is a bad example, they could actually use those IPs if they shared them with google or something..

companies that totally don't need them would be companies like:

Ford
Boeing
GE

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (4, Interesting)

Wolfier (94144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264007)

Halliburton Company     34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255

Even as someone who doesn't think of Microsoft as an Internet pioneer, I'd rather MS owns this block than Halliburton.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (5, Interesting)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264169)

They could delay the inevitable by reallocating existing IPv4 space more efficiently. Many old/historical allocations are inefficient. Apple Computer, for example, has all of the 17.x.x.x space, comprising 256^3 = more than 16 million addresses, which is just plain absurd in this day and age.


Don't complain about Apple. HP has all of 15.x.x.x and all of 16.x.x.x, because they purchased DEC who also had a class-A.

Interestingly, HP is the only company that effectively has a /7 because their block is contiguous.

Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264303)

Wow!

Where can I get one of those? I have to write a letter and pay higher bills to get 4 IPs.

this is like one of those end of the world..... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263639)

predictions

every year there is a new nutter predicting the end of the world. Havent we heard of this argument before? Would it be a good idea to take ownership of those class A spaces that quite a few companies are hoarding??

IPv6 (1)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263649)

Will ISPs be moving towards IPv6 any time soon?

Are they going to fix [slashdot.org] IPv6 anytime soon?

I also love my quirks [slashdot.org] .

Re:IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263687)

I also love my quirks.

Because one-to-many NAT is the only way a firewall can ever possibly work.

IPv6 will be just fine, all we have to do is drag the guys who can't figure out how to build a firewall that won't even have to contain a connection tracking/port mapping table out back and shoot them. You can still have your firewall, just do it right.

Re:IPv6 (1)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263765)

I didn't say it couldn't work in IPv6, I said I prefer the old way. Since it's on my home network and not affecting anyone else, I'll keep it that way dag nabbit!

Re:IPv6 (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264151)

I also love my quirks.

A firewall in IPv6 will actually be easier to design since it doesn't have to do NAT. It can still block incoming and outgoing connections on selected ports as well as filtering traffic. In fact, that's how organizations with class A or B allocations do it now.

-b.

Re:IPv6 (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264341)

ISP would love to make you pay per system. so people will want to go the router way and only use 1 ip.

Huh. The next time bamboo will flower. (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263663)

IPv4 runs out, bamboo flowers for the first time in 150 years. Can't be a chance, can it?

Increase Address Space (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263673)

Why not just increase the address space for IPv4?

Hell call it IPv4.1

Re:Increase Address Space (2, Insightful)

solafide (845228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263731)

Do you not understand that IPv6 essentially increases the address space for IPv4 to virtually infinity?

Re:Increase Address Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264123)

Do you not understand that IPv6 essentially increases the address space for IPv4 to virtually infinity?

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Increase Address Space (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264167)

Do you not understand that IPv6 essentially increases the address space for IPv4 to virtually infinity?

I think that he means increase the number of octets in IPv4 without introducing some of the complications of IPv6 like mandatory IPSEC.

-b.

Reallocate what is available (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263679)

Many companies are using a fraction of the /8s and /16s that were assigned to them back when.

Re:Reallocate what is available (2, Insightful)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263737)

True, but you'll have to pry it from their cold dead fingers!!!
Kind of reminds me of a Grandpa Simpson (skewed to be somewhat on topic): "I didn't earn it, I don't need it, but if they miss one [octal] I'll raise hell."

Re:Reallocate what is available (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263953)

Maaaaaaaatlooooooooock!

Why IP6? (0)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263697)

Why not IP4 2.0?

Reserve 256 IP addresses that will never be used by IP4
Then with these 100 addresses, add on another IP4 to it :)
Lets say 000.000.000.001 through 256.256.255.256 were plain IP4. Then everything is working as planned.
Then we run out of internet addresses! OH NO
Next dude's internet address is: 256.256.256.0 + 000.000.000.001
Next dude's internet address is: 256.256.256.0 + 000.000.000.002
It would ease adoption I think

Re:Why IP6? fix an error (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263735)

255.255.255.0 not 256.256.256.0 And other places where I messed up.

Re:Why IP6? (2, Interesting)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263767)

That would require a change to all TCP/IP stacks, and replacement of core routers.

Why not just fix the problem outright if you are going to do that?

uh, what? (2, Interesting)

DreadSpoon (653424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263797)

Ease adoption how, exactly? You still need to update the protocol, then update all the software, and all the hardware, and all the documentation and training... you can't just tack that on to existing implementations of software.

If you're going to force all that change, then change to something that isn't a silly half-arsed hackjob.

Re:uh, what? (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263981)

The key is that it isn't a forced change, its a gradual one. The people with IP4 addresses and software can keep what they're doing and not slow down... Only when the final IP4v2 addresses are implemented will people have to rewrite software. Lets say they only fix the software for webbrowsing at first. Then people who do nothing but webbrowse can be offered cheaper connections and get the upper digits. Then later as people develop new software, they'll take into account that there are IP4v2 people out there and write their software to work with everyone... Eventually old software is phased out, and new software comes into being... Its a gradual changed instead of all at once. That is why I suggested it.

Re:uh, what? uh, what? uh, what?? (ie. stupid idea (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264325)

The gradual change is the IPv6! You have no *clue* what you are talking about.

IPv6 can address all IPv4s. It just doesn't work the other way around because IPv6 is a superset of IPv4.

Re:uh, what? (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264383)

The people with IP4 addresses and software can keep what they're doing and not slow down... Only when the final IP4v2 addresses are implemented will people have to rewrite software.

You mean like, what will happen with IPv6? IPv4 addresses are IPv6 addresses. As others have *obviously* said, no sense fixing the problem partially when it requires just as much work as fixing it well.

Don't expect a prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263921)

So 99.6% of addresses are 64-bit long, yet you managed to create only 2^40 addresses. What kind of design is that?

Re:Why IP6? (0, Flamebait)

abigor (540274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263995)

Hahahaha this is the stupidest idea I've ever seen. Go back to talking to "god", kid.

VoIp Everything (5, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263699)

Telecom companies are switching everything, including cell phones, to VoIP. Soon, damn near every cell phone will have an IP address associated with it. CDMA phones that EVDO rev-A already do. I know one carrier that has a pool of 2 million available addresses, and 20+ million customers with cellphones.

IPv4 addresses are going to be going away very quickly.

Re:VoIp Everything (3, Funny)

glomph (2644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263747)

Nonsense. If mobile companies do go to VoIP, it will be done in private IP space. The IPv6 fanboys are ridiculous, even Dick Cheney is more believable....

Re:VoIp Everything (1)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263977)

RFC 1918 only allocates just under 18 million private IP addresses.

There are more mobile devices on and one individual network than that.

Re:VoIp Everything (1)

glomph (2644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264069)

It's private space, they can use the full 32 bits. Which comes out to over 4 Billion.

Re:VoIp Everything (1)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264221)

No, they can't. All the switches, routers and other computing equipment involved that deals with all this needs to talk to other carriers and the outside world. They can't totally isolate each carrier, unless you're never going to call anyone outside "your" network.

That doesn't even begin to address CALEA compliance, third-party features, etc.

Re:VoIp Everything (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264027)

But what if I want to be able to send a message to my phone using a unique number?!

Re:VoIp Everything (3, Informative)

bofkentucky (555107) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263809)

what provider is giving out routeable addresses on their phones? Nextel is giving us 10. addresses.

Re:VoIp Everything (1)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264335)

Not for long. Sprint purchased Nextel and is migrating them off of Motorola's proprietary iDEN network over to CDMA REV-A. The combined network is too big for the 10.x.x.x address space.

http://www.wirelessweek.com/article.aspx?id=76946 [wirelessweek.com]

http://mrtmag.com/mag/radio_pt_cellular_works/ [mrtmag.com]

Re:VoIp Everything (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263895)

I doubt any cell-phone company is going to willingly give up their position as the middle-man in every network transaction. How else will they be able to control their customers?

Re:VoIp Everything (1)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264019)

Which is why they'll move to IPv6. There aren't enough private IPv4 addresses available, and they can't expand their customer base using IPv4.

http://www.qualcomm.com/qis/qchat/ [qualcomm.com]

"It forms a call by combining separate point-to-point connections between each IP endpoint at a managing entity known as the QChat Applications Server, deployed on the carrier's IP Wide Area Network (WAN.)"

Whew! (5, Funny)

zymurgy_cat (627260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263753)

Man, am I glad I've got 192.168.0.100 through 192.168.0.105 setup on my network at home. Hmmm.....maybe I should lay claim to 106 through 110, just in case.....

Hey! (4, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263927)

Those are MINE, you THIEF!

Re:Hey! (4, Funny)

zymurgy_cat (627260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264003)

In that case, I'm blocking them with my firewall. Take that, jerk!

Re:Whew! (5, Funny)

D4rk Fx (862399) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263973)

Man, am I glad I've got 192.168.0.100

That's the same IP address I've got on my luggage!

Re:Whew! (1)

notnAP (846325) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264031)

Oh yeah? I got the whole damned 127/8 network. It's all mine.


Anyone pissed off at me is more than welcome to try to crack my gateway at 127.0.0.1


Do your worst... I've been waiting for a chance to check out my new anti-DoS techniques against a flood.

Re:Whew! (4, Funny)

SageLikeFool (547462) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264047)

Now that I know your IP address range I am so gonna h4x y3r b0x3n.

Re:Whew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264139)

Hah! I've got a whole class A to myself. 10.0.0.0/8 is mine!

Use NAT liberaly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263845)

Would it not help if we just better utilized NAT. it seems like a throw-back to a time when we did not have switches/routers that would be able to handle translation.

Re:Use NAT liberaly (2, Insightful)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264207)

Would it not help if we just better utilized NAT.

NAT is a dreadful hack.

-b.

Carbon Credits (3, Insightful)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263847)

I think companies will start 'renting' addresses as IPv4 is approaching its limit, pretty much like the concept of carbon credits.

Companies may cut down unnecessary IP usage, or buy/rent addresses from other companies with plenty to spare.

This 'trade' could go on until such point it's either more costly to rent than move to IPv6, or when all available-and-necessary addresses have been fully utilized.

They will move when they have to (5, Insightful)

DreadSpoon (653424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263851)

I doubt anyone will be making a concerted effort to switch until it actually becomes necessary. Once the IPv4 address space runs out, hacks will be done to extend it. Ranges will be "repo'd" from companies, or those companies will just start reselling those ranges. Not until there is no space left to squeeze out will people really start caring.

ISPs won't care (5, Insightful)

Natales (182136) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263919)

If we do run out of IPv4 addresses for real this time, I predict ISPs will switch to 100% private IP addressing space before even thinking on IPv6.
Heck, it's already happening in other countries. In Chile for example (a reasonably high-tech country) VTR http://www.vtr.cl/ [www.vtr.cl] , the only cable ISP, will give you ONLY RFC-1918 addresses, period.

The masses won't care. They only care about their basic apps, and ISPs will use that as leverage to control more services, especially all P2P and VoIP-related ones.

Link to RFC 1918 (2, Informative)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264337)

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.html [faqs.org]

If I'm reading it correctly your ISP treats you like you are part of their corporate intranet and then pipes your traffic out. I'd expect the ISP have a similar traffic footprint and pattern to a largeish college campus that doesn't assign every PC an outside IP.

Let's just NAT (4, Funny)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 7 years ago | (#19263941)

Kidding - I'm KIDDING

Conservation Effort? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19263965)

I imagine there will be a conservation effort to try to mop up unused addresses to mitigate shortages before things get really bad.

Don't a number of organizations have Class A's and B's that they could never possibly use?

Next Y2K? (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264071)

You mean it will be correctly identified as a problem and fixed? God I hope not - that would be awful.

False dichotomy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264079)

Love these inflammatory story summaries. There couldn't possibly be a #3, like, oh, I don't know, people continue to use NAT and ignore the chickens running around with their heads cut off?

Doesn't N.A.T. solve this ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19264197)

Why not just throw all users on a sub $25 a month package behind another NAT.

Im sure that accounts for at least 50% of internet users.Its unlikely they do anything with there connection that requires port forwarding or they would be on a better package.

Start preparing your resume... (3, Insightful)

dircha (893383) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264237)

...and climb on board as an enterprise IPv6 migration consultant.

Hopefully it *is* the new Y2K.

IPv6 is already here. Been here for awhile (4, Interesting)

Zaffle (13798) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264259)

I'm continually amazed at the number of people in the IT and Net industry who keep "wondering" when IPv6 will arrive. Its been here for a long time. I'm running a series of web servers for internal company use that have native IPv6 addresses. For public consumption, we have an IPv4 reverse proxy that allows us to run our entire web services behind one IPv4 address. Any customer who has an IPv6 address gets to talk to the individual servers.

The advantage comes when you consider management. In order to have 20 SSH/FTP/etc accessible Internet servers, I'd either need 20 separate IPv4 addresses (getting a decent segment of a class C here is expensive), or I'd have to play fun games with ports. All our technicians have IPv6 on their laptops, and use tunnel brokers for access to the v6 network.

Most of our clients have IPv6 connectivity, though they don't notice it. When we put in a firewall, IPv6 comes default setup with tunnel brokers.

People keep asking, when's there gonna be v6 content? There is no v6 content (ok, their is full colour ascii starwars). Any content provider would be nuts to say "you have to have v6 to see our content" at this point (with the exception of mobile phones). IT Techs brought v4 to the public, we'll bring v6 to the public. Its technicians like myself who appreciate having an Internet accessible toaster (ok, so its not yet accessible) that have already started the ball rolling.

Before long you'll see hosting providers saying, you can have one web gateway shared v4 address and a /64 v6 address for a cheap price. You'll design your websites to be usable on v4, but for management tools, etc, you'll need to install a v6 tunnel.

Re:IPv6 is already here. Been here for awhile (1)

the_greywolf (311406) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264287)

I'm continually amazed at the number of people in the IT and Net industry who keep "wondering" when IPv6 will arrive. Its been here for a long time.

Hi, I'm in IT and I've talked to everyone I know who is also in IT in my area (northwestern Washington) about IPv6 rollout.

I've gotten exactly one answer from all of them: never.

So, yeah, I'm wondering when it's gonna happen.

Is Bogon List Space Considered (2, Funny)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264329)

I wonder if the bogon list space is considered?

So in a back alley in the future (3, Funny)

jhines (82154) | more than 7 years ago | (#19264375)

There will be some guy in an ill fitting suit accosting you, "hey man, got extra IP4?" "I gotta plug in man, I'm jones'ng for some connectivity." "IP6? can't. My colon can't take the colons, 3 dots is all I can handle"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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