Beta

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!

IPv4 Address Crunch In 2 Years, IPv6 Not Ready

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the told-ya dept.

Networking 539

An anonymous reader writes "We've known for ages that IPv4 was going to run out of addresses — now, it's happening. IPv6 was going to save us — it isn't. The upcoming crisis will hit, perhaps as soon as 2010, but nobody can agree on what to do. The three options are all pretty scary. This article covers the background, and links to a presentation by Randy Bush (PDF) that shows the reality of the problem in stark detail."

cancel ×

539 comments

FUD (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22513946)

n/t

Re:FUD (1, Interesting)

RobGeek (536943) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514002)

Totally Agree! WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF and now we are supposed to believe that there is really a "shortage" that we are to worry about? Oh heavens! The whole Internet will collapse!

Is this REALLY a problem? (5, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514040)

Is this really a problem for most people? NAT really.

Re:Is this REALLY a problem? (0)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514268)

Is this really a problem for most people?

NAT really.
Except you can't NAT a NATted connection. What happens when your ISP gets the bright idea to give you a "simulated private IP address" and charge $20 a month for one of their few remaining real ones?

What happens when server farms start having to do the same? Last I heard, two NATted clients can't talk to each other.

This article may be crying wolf, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the very real problem.

Re:Is this REALLY a problem? (5, Informative)

ModMeFlamebait (781879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514312)

Except you can't NAT a NATted connection.
Sure you can.

Re:Is this REALLY a problem? (5, Informative)

Tranzistors (1180307) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514338)

Last I heard, two NATted clients can't talk to each other.

Unless you have port forwarding (or how do you kids call it these days)

Re:Is this REALLY a problem? (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514532)

I always called "routing." Anyhow, who wants to bet on an upcoming "land grab" for IPV4 addresses? I mean this in the sense that people will start setting up whatever silly services they have to in order to justify the additional IPs in the short term, in the belief that they're going to be unavailable later or at much greater contractual cost. Sorta like the Y2K scare, but arguably more amusing to watch (not to mention profitable if you're in the right position).

Re:Is this REALLY a problem? (1)

entrex (580367) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514482)

Why can't NAT clients talk to each other? I have no problem with NAT using torrents, ftp, etc. OpenBSD + PF = hotness

Re:Is this REALLY a problem? (3, Informative)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514554)

Except you can't NAT a NATted connection.
Sure you can. All NAT does is take one IP address, monitor connections and spread/translate the unique connections across different ports. The device doing the NAT doesn't care "where" it gets its source IP from, it just knows that it has an IP and it splits the connections to that IP. The only potential issue is that if the first NAT runs out of available ports. However, at that point its routing table would be huge and it would probably begin to degrade in performance (depending on the hardware).

Well duh (5, Insightful)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22513950)

It's not hard to figure out why we haven't solved this problem. It costs MORE to fix it now than it does to wait.

So just wait until it costs more to live with IPv4 than to migrate to new systems. Then EVERYONE will be working on a solution.

Re:Well duh (4, Insightful)

John3 (85454) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514010)

It's not hard to figure out why we haven't solved this problem. It costs MORE to fix it now than it does to wait.

So just wait until it costs more to live with IPv4 than to migrate to new systems. Then EVERYONE will be working on a solution.
This is true of technology in general. Government and industry debate global warming and peak oil but do very little to actually address the issue since it costs so much to implement solutions. The IPv4 issue is daunting to be sure, so it's no surprise that IPv6 progressed so slowly. I did a quick search back to 2000 on Google News and industry and tech journals were shouting warnings even back then. So eight years later there is no solution.

The problem will be fixed when the p0rn sites can't get new IP addresses. The adult entertainment industry has driven many of the Internet and web innovations in the past (streaming video, credit card processing) and they'll likely lead us into a bright new future of unlimited Internet addresses. :)

Re:Well duh (4, Insightful)

orzetto (545509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514388)

This is true of technology in general. Government and industry debate global warming and peak oil but do very little to actually address the issue since it costs so much to implement solutions.

Society is not an amorphous blob with a clear will and an appreciation of its own good. Society is made up by people, and what the decision makers think is "good" is not necessarily good for society; both because the decision makers might be wrong, and because their own interests may be different from those of society (you don't get to be president because you're Joe Average from Missouri).

In the case of Ipv4, as in the one of energy, the interest of society is to fix the problem. The interest of the decision makers, however, is not to fix it, because they are now sitting on a critical asset that is always in demand and that is getting increasingly scarce, and therefore more expensive. The near-disaster scenario is in their interest, because that way they will maximise their returns. It's like the owner of an oasis in the Sahara: rain and rivers would be bad for business, drought is more people depending on you.

I would expect China or India to come up with a solution first: they don't have many IP addresses to begin with, they have growing economies that will sooner or later require more IP addresses, and they have the means to kickstart a major project.

Re:Well duh (3, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514588)

While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but there are quantitative differences between the thinking of a country like Japan and for example the USA. In Japan, they did have the foresight to make their systems IPv6 ready, so maybe just our expectations are too low? I'd rather tell people what to do than to make excuses in the technology/politics field referring to Joe Sixpack who allegedly wouldn't understand or care.

Re:Well duh (1)

newrisejohn (517586) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514602)

I would expect China or India to come up with a solution first: they don't have many IP addresses to begin with, they have growing economies that will sooner or later require more IP addresses, and they have the means to kickstart a major project.

All the more reason for the US to get something set up first. I don't think the Chinese controlling/influencing the next big step in the Internet architecture will sit well with the US government.

Re:Well duh (2, Informative)

upside (574799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514490)

Never mind pr0n, how about industry leaders with deep pockets like Google, Yahoo, Sun and Microsoft? Not one has an AAAA record for their web servers. It's pretty pathetic.

Re:Well duh (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514512)

No solution ? I think that most equipment sold today are IPv6 ready, what is missing in the chain ?

Re:Well duh (4, Interesting)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514012)

That sounds like an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument to me. Which in fine and good for simpler technologies, but can be disastrous for more modern technologies. Just think what would happen if you didn't change your car's oil until the car simply refused to run. What would happen if we all decided not to curb our oil consumption habits until we either ran completely out of oil reserves. You see its the shortsightedness that in the long run costs you WAY MORE than if you simply keep the options in mind and work towards a solution.

So in two years when they can't add any more addresses, the only ones to blame will be those who stuck they feet in the mud and wouldn't budge. Besides, they can always just start taking away all those spam sites that offer no real content and just distribute those to other who actually need them, I'm sure there's at least another 2 years worth of those.

Re:Well duh (4, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514180)

Besides, they can always just start taking away all those spam sites that offer no real content and just distribute those to other
Actually, the spammers/phishers are already doing their utmost to stop eating new IPv4 addresses, and conserve them by using existing IPs of random Windows boxes. See, who's the bad guys now?

Re:Well duh (1)

whyloginwhysubscribe (993688) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514042)

It's a false economy though, isn't it?
It is going to cost more in the future to fix it than it does now.
If only the executives would listen to us geeks...

Re:Well duh (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514334)

It's time for a new breed of man. One who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty, but can also wash them when it's time to meet the management. Someone who can make time to shower and shave every morning. Someone who's novelty geek mug will be understood by even those who think that having spyware makes them a secret agent. Ladies and - oh wait, scratch that. *ahem* Gentlemen! Today I introduce a new template class - the Geexecutive! Get implementing!

Re:Well duh (1)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514438)

Until I got to the line about the novelty geek mug, I thought you were trying to sell us a new brand of underarm deodorant.

Re:Well duh (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514534)

*googles "define:underarm deoderant"*

Re:Well duh (4, Funny)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514058)

It's not hard to figure out why we haven't solved this problem. It costs MORE to fix it now than it does to wait. So just wait until it costs more to live with IPv4 than to migrate to new systems. Then EVERYONE will be working on a solution.

On the other hand, some people will wait until the last minute and then spend time and energy towards solutions that might have spent towards other things had a more gradual migration takes place.

In fact, the looming IPv4 address crunch reminds me a little bit of the Y2K issue. Maybe some journalists will start presenting it to the public as a countdown to doomsday? We could have manuals like Hyatt's old The Y2K Personal Survival Guide [amazon.com] telling us how to stock up on food and generator fuel for when civilization ends due to the sudden lack of new IP addresses. There would be religious figures and conspiracy theorists claiming that the Antichrist/UN/black helicopters/NWO will take advance of the chaos surrounding the IPv4 address crunch to institute their reign of fear. It'll be like 1999 all over again.

Re:Well duh (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514186)

The problem is that Y2K was handled so well, and as a result the consequences of it were so ridiculously minor, that most people in the general public feel that it was all overblown hype. Yes, there was a lot of hype, but the fact is a lot of programmers worked a long time to make sure things that needed to be fixed got fixed.

However, since most people feel that Y2K was overblown and the money spent on it was wasted, they're unlikely to take seriously any new "crisis" in IT, and will simply refuse to spend any money on it.

Re:Well duh (5, Funny)

argiedot (1035754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514328)

Absolutely, reminds me of an old joke:

  • Visitor: If there's quicksand in this part near the town why don't you put up a sign?!
  • Man: We did, but nobody was falling in so we thought it was useless.
Ha ha.

Re:Well duh (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514526)

Perhaps it's a problem with corporate culture? Stockholders won't like an expenditure to prepare for IPV6. It's money going out without any perceived benefit. They'd rake over the coals any manager who approved such a thing.

Once there's a benefit, however, things will be different. Even if it means spending three times as much in the scramble as you would have if you'd prepared earlier on, people will understand that it's vital to expand the IT interests.

You see this all the time in corporate America. The goal is to get gains no matter the cost. Long-term plans don't fly because, simply, they're not fast enough. They don't get that stock to go up RIGHT NOW. If your stock's not going up, people are going to be selling.

I don't think it's a fundamental problem with the stock market, however. I think it's what happens when you get greedy people buying stocks.

Re:Well duh (1)

debrain (29228) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514138)

So just wait until it costs more to live with IPv4 than to migrate to new systems. Then EVERYONE will be working on a solution.
True. Now, let us remark upon and observe how some will expand the problem from IPv4 to a problem of piracy, privacy, and net neutrality.

Re:Well duh (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514244)

Let's apply that logic to another, known future crisis that was understood years in advance, and that everyone waited to happen to actually do something about it:

So just wait until it costs more to live with the levies breaking in New Orleans and rebuilding the city than to actually build a new levy system. Then EVERYONE will be working on a solution.

Re:Well duh (1)

shakotah (785520) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514414)

Or we can delay it a few more years if we all start implementing Server Name Indication (SNI), as described in section 3.1 of the http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3546.txt [ietf.org] . This would let hosting companies share 1 IP with several domain names and still be able to use https because the certs would have multiple domain names. It should be much cheaper (only certs are extra cost) and requires almost no hardware changes (some ssl accelerators might need upgrades).

The obvious solution is IPv5 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22513962)

If IPv4 runs out and we can't use IPv6, then I guess we split the difference and use IPv5

Dupe (5, Informative)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22513970)

Here is the story from a few weeks ago [slashdot.org]

And as I said before, the solution is to take back some of those huge class A blocks from companies like HP, Ford and GE, which are not using all the space. That would buy a few years.

Re:Dupe (4, Informative)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514034)

RTFA - which says

... there are ideas for managing the address space more efficiently by introducing auction and other pricing mechanisms to encourage better use (people who don't need their allocation will flog them off rather than hoarding them, while new uses will be parsimonious in their approach), but the developing world sees this as unfair in the extreme. You can see their point.

There are other problems: how do you route IP addresses when the existing hierarchy breaks down due to address spaces moving through the network? Who's responsible for managing an increasingly incoherent network? Who foots the bill when your address space is sold from underneath you? In any case, it doesn't solve the basic problem - it merely makes it increasingly expensive to innovate.
so it's not quite that easy...

Re:Dupe (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514046)

Not dupe! That story is titled "One Step Closer to IPv6"... This one is "798 steps to go"

Re:Dupe (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514210)

Not dupe! That story is titled "One Step Closer to IPv6"... This one is "798 steps to go"
And what is the number of step "AAAA record for slashdot.org"?

Re:Dupe (4, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514050)

And we need to retrieve some from the Vatican as well!

Looking at the information here [modernlife...bish.co.uk] then the Vatican has far too many IPs per capita. Ditto for the other tiny nations of Gibralta and Monaco. I'm sure it'll buy us at least a week!

And for anyone geeky enough to care (who isn't geeky enough to have it bookmarked already) here [iana.org] is the assignment list. Each of the companies mentioned owns an entire top level block (e.g. Ford own 19.xxx.xxx.xxx) and some like the Defense Information Systems Agency (whoever they are) own multiple blocks! That's an awful lot of addresses.

Re:Dupe (2, Interesting)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514130)

2^24= 16,777,216 addresses for each of those companies seems excessive. If there was a major crisis, I would wager to bet they would begin leasing out these addresses to private consumers at a premium. Regardless, I've heard so many estimates about when this is going to happen, I find it difficult to believe any of them.

Re:Dupe (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514320)

heck, I used to know a private company with ~100 employees that had gotten a "Class B" because the owner had known someone on the allocation board "way back when".

The company doesn't exist anymore, but it wouldn't surprise me to know the ex-owner was still hanging on to the Class B (he had mentioned that he'd been offered lots of money for it quite a few times, but preferred to have it for the prestige value).

Re:Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514544)

but preferred to have it for the prestige value... or waiting for a LOT MORE money as the available ip space goes down.

Re:Dupe (4, Interesting)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514256)

This [xkcd.com] is a much prettier depiction

Re:Dupe (2, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514516)

We allocate 10-12 /8's [potaroo.net] every year, and that rate is increasing. Reclaiming legacy allocations is not going to help.

Re:Dupe (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514062)

Does the IANA still lease class A addresses? I thought they went to a classless system.

Re:Dupe (1)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514366)

They did. Those class As are just legacy. Maybe they have tried to get those blocks back from the companies but the companies are saying no. Honestly, I would just tell the companies "tough" because if we switch to IPv6, they won't have the vanity of having such a large block anyways. I'm going to write to IANA about this.

Re:Dupe (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514094)

And as I said before, the solution is to take back some of those huge class A blocks from companies like HP, Ford and GE, which are not using all the space. That would buy a few years.
I feel a pang of guilt here since we have a full class C block at my business. We use about a dozen static IP's (mail and web servers) but we've had the full class C block for 10 years or more from our original contract with uuNet. I think over the years they just forgot we had the block of addresses, and with the change from uuNet to Worldcom/MCI and now Verizon it's a wonder they can keep anything straight.

Re:Dupe (1)

thegameiam (671961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514096)

The presentation was at NANOG, which just concluded on Wednesday of this week.

If all of the class-A space allocated to companies was revoked (there are actually some companies which really DO use their whole class-A, and the legality of revoking it would be pretty questionable (they don't have a contractual relationsihp with ARIN, for instance), that would buy about another year given the current burn rate. No matter when it runs out, it's running out, and we should be prepared for it.

-David

Re:Dupe (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514132)

I agree...no need to stop there though. I work for a medium-sized company, and we have at least 50 static IP addresses we aren't using. We need a respectable number for coordination between our overseas facilities. I would think there would have to be thousands of other companies like us with extra addresses that are not needed at all.

And? (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514162)

That is one way to do it, keep patching it up and hope it becomes somebodies elses problem.

The problem is simple, the way we want to use the internet means we are getting more and more devices which desire their own internet adress. Some people suggest solutions like NAT but these only have so many uses especially when mobile phones become internet capable. If you want your internet node to be independent then you need an ip adress.

Don't believe me? Fine, give up your internet connection with its own IP and use the NAT solution of your ISP. Good luck running a torrent.

We could easily solve the entire problem if we just used NAT for every major ISP. It would free up countless adresses and keep IP4 usuable for decades rather then years.

So who is first? Who is going to give up their IP for their home for the greater good?

Thought as much, absolutly nobody.

It is the problem with humans, we don't want new power installations, we don't want to use less power and we refuse to switch to more economical appliances. Something has to give, but goverment or business is NOT going to do it. Sooner or later it just breaks down (see the LA brownouts) and finally a decission will have to be made.

Same with a solution to IP4 limited adress space. We will keep coming up with patches and ignore the problem until finally it can no longer be ignored and then we will have to really bite down to implement it at great cost and inconvenience when we could have solved it easily right now.

Because lets be honest, it ain't all that much of a problem. In the EU we switched currencies. A hell of a job but because it became accepted that it had to be done, it just happened.

We could easily do a switch to IP6 but only when the majority just accepts that it has to be done, and bites the bullet.

Analog mobile phones no longer work in the US, holland no longer airs analog tv signals, switches happen all the time. It is nothing special, but in each case somebody just had to say "we are switching and if you are not ready, though".

So what if countless devices will no longer work, at a given point you just have to be able to say "upgrade or be left behind" or you will be forced to increasinly bend over backwards to accomadate out of date tech.

Re:And? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514352)

So what if countless devices will no longer work, at a given point you just have to be able to say "upgrade or be left behind" or you will be forced to increasinly bend over backwards to accomadate out of date tech.


Sounds like a Marketing Slogan Intel and MicroSoft could really get behind. :)

Heck, it might even help Vista's adoption rate.

Re:Dupe (1)

gclef (96311) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514198)

And you would be wrong. We burn through 2-3 /8's every few months. The effort to reclaim the legacy /8's would take longer than the time we'd gain from reclaiming them.

Top to bottom responsibility would be nice. (1)

PrimalChrome (186162) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514234)

Not only that, but maybe a little ISP responsibility across the board would be a good thing. Over the past few years I've had multiple clients with entire class C's. Total INTERNAL hosts for each client was less than 30. By a slim margin, most of those class C's were being given out by Sprint.

Re:Dupe (1)

AceJohnny (253840) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514382)

And as I said before, the solution is to take back some of those huge class A blocks from companies like HP, Ford and GE, which are not using all the space. That would buy a few years.
(emphasis added)

Those are corporations, their goal is to make money. They're sitting on a pile of valuable allocation space. What prevents them from renting them away, just like any other ISP?

Re:Dupe (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514530)

You cannot resolve what is ultimately an order of magnitude problem by reallocating the existing IP space. That's like trying save a sinking ship by organizing a bucket brigade which goes from the lower deck to the captain's quarters.

If the blocks become a valuable asset the companies will auction them off themselves, seeing as making a profit by selling assets is WHAT THEY DO. No need to deal with all of the political an economic fallout from a government usurpation of the property.

Simply consolidating the existing resources by use of NAT, dynamic IPS, etc. will accomplish infinitely more anyway.

Tell MIT and IBM (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22513984)

To hand over the bazillion address they have lock away. Problem solved for a few more years.

Re:Tell MIT and IBM (2, Insightful)

hool5400 (257022) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514072)

If they consider these addresses to be an asset that other people want, then there is going to be lawyers and dollars involved.

Re:Tell MIT and IBM (1)

thegameiam (671961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514202)

Do you have any idea how big either one of them are? They do actually USE those addresses, you know.

Also, that doesn't buy much time - it's a lot of work for very little benefit.

Re:Tell MIT and IBM (3, Informative)

beuges (613130) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514372)

As a commenter above posted, each of those companies with top-level blocks actually owns 16,777,216 IP addresses. These companies include IBM, MIT, Ford, DEC, AT&T, Apple and Xerox.

As big as IBM and MIT may be, do you really think they need almost 17 million IP addresses?

Re:Tell MIT and IBM (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514458)

Are there any companies outside USA that owns top-level blocks? I know the Internet was invented in USA, by Al Gore I believe ;-), but it's not really in the long term interests of the USA to hoard so many addresses.

Re:Tell MIT and IBM (1)

Twisted Willie (1035374) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514430)

They do actually USE those addresses, you know.

And that's the problem. I can't say much about IBM or MIT, but I can say something about HP as I've been one of their employees. IIRC, they have 2 blocks, the second one came from their taking over of Compaq (which had it from when they took over DEC).

The problem is that they use a lot of those adresses for internal machines, that should really be using NAT for. I mean, I would setup a VPN tunnel from home and get a 15.x.x.x adress assigned. So yeah, they use the addresses, but what's the point?

Re:Tell MIT and IBM (1)

fmobus (831767) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514518)

Yes, they're big, but I doubt they have so enough public-facing machines to justify that many adresses.

Funny noone mentioned yet: the map of the internet [xkcd.com] . Pardon my ignorange, but why can't we use some of those "green" blocks?

Will get solved when needed to be solved (2, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514022)

People will move and applications will get ported to IPv6, but only when they HAVE To move to IPv6 OR when there is some benefit that outweighs the cost.

Simple.

simple: ip cohabitation (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514048)

i'm sharing my blog ip address with a porn site dedicated to a fetish for women with moustaches, some guy's home security system in hong kong, a government bureaucrat's cell phone in helsinki, and an email server for a truck dispatching company waco texas

i think it's also a pretty good premise for a reality show or situation comedy

Re:simple: ip cohabitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514098)

women with moustaches
You leave my mom out of this!

Re:simple: ip cohabitation (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514172)

I don't think he's your mom.

Just buy a cheap SOHO router (5, Funny)

blake1 (1148613) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514070)

And put China behind it. IPv4 addresses, plenty. Botnet problem, solved.

Re:Just buy a cheap SOHO router (1)

killmofasta (460565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514126)

Mod parent +2 funny. That was good. Really really good!

Re:Just buy a cheap SOHO router (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514216)

> Mod parent +2 funny. That was good. Really really good!

But don't mod him +3 funny. It wasn't that good?

Re:Just buy a cheap SOHO router (1)

killmofasta (460565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514302)

It didnt hit the 10+ minute laugh, and try to call someone while Im chokeing type laugh. It was a long and loud laugh though. It was good though...

Put china behind a NAT... hahahhahahhaha! Stop spambots .... hahahhahahhahah
It is a subtile and good joke.

Re:Just buy a cheap SOHO router (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514260)

If you do that, China will just make its own internet. Without blackjack, or hookers.

Hardware compatibility and updating. (2, Interesting)

rfelsburg (1237090) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514080)

The shift will also depend on hardware vendors making sure that their hardware is completely ipv6 compatible. Even with quite a few vendors saying that their stuff is compatible, I know of a quite a few major bugs still lurking with those same vendors. Not many large companies are going to switch to IPv6 until they need to upgrade hardware, if their existing hardware is only IPv4 compatible.

Randy Bush? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514092)

My girlfriend's "pet name" is Randy Bush!

host header? (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514100)

would it be feasible to host, for example, 100 different websites on one ip using header information? or does that have traffic spike issues/ latency issues/ wasted cycles involved?

SSL (3, Informative)

mother_reincarnated (1099781) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514168)

would it be feasible to host, for example, 100 different websites on one ip using header information? or does that have traffic spike issues/ latency issues/ wasted cycles involved?
The real problem is https not http - you don't get the host header until well after you had to present a certificate to the browser. For http 100 'virtual host-by-name' sites on one IP wouldn't even break a sweat for a good setup.

It is not what you want (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514336)

Computers communicate by ip address not domain name. For instance the slashdot server I am posting this on has IP 66.35.250.150

Now that doesn't mean that ALL of slashdot is hosted on that address, it doesn't mean ONLY slashdot is hosted on that address and it doesn't even mean slashdot the site/code is there.

What it means is that if my computer requests a connection on port 80 with certain information from that IP I will be given a slashdot page.

There might be a NAT solution with 66.35.250.150 being nothing more then a router, it might be a server where the webserver swiches me to the right set of pages based on the requested domain name.

There are PLENTY of solutions to host multiple sites from a single IP or have multiple servers behind a single IP.

The problem is that one of them are "sexy".

The problem is that shared IP is used mostly for cheapo sites, those sites where you share a server with many others. These solutions are typically very bad making everyone who has a site dream of the day they can afford a dedicated server.

Now there is no real reason why a dedicated server (the computer) could not share an outward IP address with other servers BUT that is not the way these things are done. IP adresses are cheap and plentifull and if you get your own dedicated server your hosting company will gladly give you a handfull of IP's to go with it.

What might be needed but will be very hard to do is convince people that they don't need their own ip for their site. Good luck with that, until the crunch becomes really thight what hosting company is going to take away something their customers have taken for granted for the good of the rest of the world? Might as well expect a car maker to stop making big gass guzzlers to save the enviroment.

Yes it is possible to host sites under a single IP. The only limit is how much the hardware/software that redirects the requests it receives to the right site can handle.

Think of it like this, the limit to the performance of your NAT solution at home is your router. You can't host 10 100mbit sites behind a 10mbit router.

But the tech doesn't matter, the problem is simply that people don't want it.

Re:host header? (1)

thegameiam (671961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514378)

Lots of folks do this: google "virtual hosting" - it's been around since the mid-90s.

However, it doesn't solve the depletion problem, becuase most of the depletion comes from access users not content providers.

Re:host header? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514418)

Yes. In fact a lot of hosts and web site farms do that already (private IP costs extra), and we're still running out.

Time for the Government(s)? (5, Interesting)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514104)

One thing is rather clear to me: We won't run out of IPv4 addresses anytime soon, instead the price will increase more and more and thus people will end up behind ISP enforced NATs, because IPs are to expensive for the average consumer. This is after all already the case, at least in part, static IPs are a premium service, not something you get for free from most ISPs.

So how to fix this? How about some good old government regulation? If you want to provide a "Internet service", you have to provide IPv6 or you can't call it "Internet". With a little force it shouldn't take all that long till the switch to IPv6 is done. But unless that happens the rarity of IPv4 addresses will simply be seen as a nice way to make money, instead of a problem that needs to be fixed.

Re:Time for the Government(s)? (5, Funny)

zsau (266209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514230)

Or just ban porn sites from using IPv4. Everyone's happy then: Think of the Children types will have porn apparently banned, techies will see IPv6 adopted widely, and civil liberties types will have porn available if they want it.

Itojun (3, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514304)

Yeah, we always fall back on the government to help us out when us nerds aren't satisfied with how capitalism is driving the technological trends that need to happen.

But let's not forget those that went before us. Jun-ichiro Hagino [itojun.org] , better known as Itojun, was one of the first researchers that was pushing for IPv6 since as long as I can remember (at least 2001 [onlamp.com] ). On top of that he was developing specifications for it and working through the BSD code to make it one of the first operating systems fully capable of being IPv6 compliant--starting a trend that needs to happen in more operating systems sooner. He even started documenting draft APIs [ietf.org] to get developers thinking about how this would work inside software.

And then he died in a car accident at age 37 [icann.org] . It's funny how you don't appreciate their work until they're dead [cisco.com] . Almost like a painter or author.

Although many still carry on his work, the saddest part is that all his efforts to bring awareness to everyone about IPv6 may fall into the responsibilities of the government or, worse, capitalism.

Re:Time for the Government(s)? (1)

saider (177166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514520)

Governments need not legislate, but rather simply direct their IT departments to require IPv6 from their service providers. They can use their purchasing power to stimulate change. The federal and a few state governments is all it would take to make this happen.

If they legislate it, then we would really be stuck with IPv6. Imagine trying to update to the next version, when there is a law on the books holding you back.

Bad, but not fatal (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514108)

There are measures in place to try and aid in conservation as the migration occurs. RFC 3021 provides the ability to utilize /31 address space on point to point links instead of a /30. This will literally halve address utilization by point to point links (a significant use of space among carriers). It requires some work to renumber, but following that, space can be re-allocated for other things. Cores can also be built into v6 space before transported networks killing more space. Private space can be utilized for equipment management instead of utilizing public addresses for everything. There are many ways that at least on the carrier side, this can be pushed off a bit with a little work, while the v6 migration continues. Carriers are crafty, they will find a way to make it work.

All of that said, that just means I think we will find a way to get by until V6 is fully in place. Not that we should forgo finishing V6 migrations.

America Will reign supreme! (4, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514124)

America will then become the Saudi Arabia of ip addresses. Price of oil will drop to something 200,000,000 barrels for one address. Woot!

People are starting to work on solutions (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514136)

The basic solution to this problem is to deploy IPv6 as soon as you can, figure out what problems remain to be solved before you can use IPv6 100% and then put pressure on your ISPs, vendors, etc. to solve these problems. That's how the Internet grew like topsy in the first place, and its not too late to get this going. Two to three years is enough time.

ARIN has published a web site which collects information about how to move to IPv6 here: http://www.getipv6.info/ [getipv6.info]
It's oriented towards the things that ISPs and other service providers (hosting centers, large IT depts) need to do to get IPv6 working in production.

Soon, the stock market analysts will be asking the big ISPs and telecom companies what actions they are taking to avoid going bankrupt in two years when the crunch hits. Any company that can't get new IPv4 addresses will have to stop growing their IPv4 networks. If they have an IPv6 network to take up the slack, no problem. If not, then customers will flock to the providers that have IPv6 ready to roll.

There was a network operator meeting at NANOG recently where they showed that it is almost possible to provide full Internet access, both IPv4 and IPV6, using an IPv6 connection. Yes, I know, "almost" means there were problems, but they were not massive problems. They were the kind of things that people were working on fixing with IPv4 networks back in the early 90's. And they did that because they went ahead and built IPv4 networks and tried to make them work for everything imaginable. When things broke, they fixed the bugs and moved on, eventually becoming the global Internet that we know today.

There is a way to avoid going bust when the address crunch hits in two-to-three years and that is: Get yourself IPv6 Ready!

Abolish domain tasting (-1, Offtopic)

musicmaster (237156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514156)

Maybe it is finally time to abolish domain tasting.

A second strategy would be to use market forces. Let everybody pay 1 dollar a year for a domain. You can finance the UN from it and it would free up many reserved addresses.

Re:Abolish domain tasting (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514308)

Getting a domain doesn't give you an IP address

Re:Abolish domain tasting (1)

TheOldSchooler (850678) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514330)

That has absolutely nothing to do with this. Registrars aren't using dedicated IP's for the singular purpose of hosting one "tasted" domain. Domain name issues really don't have anything to do with the IPv4 issue.

Re:Abolish domain tasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514428)

You *do* know a domain isn't an IP address, right, moron?

The IPv6 mess (2, Informative)

philippic (1008271) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514160)

I think this article [cr.yp.to] by Dan Bernstein is a pretty good read regarding this subject.

One correction (2, Funny)

Random Q. Hacker (137687) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514164)

"... shows the reality of the problem in stark detail."

s/stark detail/comic sans/;

Not compatible, not happening (4, Interesting)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514170)

DJB said it best at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html [cr.yp.to] Why switch from an Internet with a billion people on it to one that has nobody on it that can't be reached by IPv4?

Re:Not compatible, not happening (3, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514402)

Actually, that makes it sound lots more appealing. :)

Re:Not compatible, not happening (1)

heper (1031798) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514558)

Well it shouldn't be hard for the isp's to set up ipv6-to-ipv4 tunnels, thus they can give out ipv6 address' to their customers
while still allowing them to access ipv4 based systems. But that would cost money and isp's only want to make money

I personally experimented with it in one of the schools i work; you can get an ipv6 subnet for free to experiment with at one of the
many tunnel brokers. The problem is that currently I have to use my ipv4 address on my router/firewall to tunnel to an ipv6 broker
in another country (kind of slow) .... then i have a zillion ipv6 address i can assign to each of my computers(yey no more NAT)

Now only to find something to do with my fancy ipv6 adress, cuss that animated gif at kame.net get boring after a while

remove dumb domains that don't have any use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514184)

Lots of squatters buy tons of domain names with the sole purpose of just putting up a bunch of ads, and nothing else. Remove that and ipv4 will probably last for another 50-100 years.

Re:remove dumb domains that don't have any use... (2, Informative)

RPoet (20693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514276)

Squatter domains typically don't have unique IPs.

Why should most people (including 'nerds') care? (2, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514254)

OK, I'm interested in technology, I know what IPv4 and IPv6 are, I know that there are many more advantages to IPv6 then to IPv4 etc. Yet I'm failing to see why I should care whether IPv4 addresses are running out or not.

But more to the point, what can I (as an individual who isn't part of the technocratic elite) do about it if I did care?

I don't code network stacks, nor kernel drivers, most of my software is written by someone else, and is automatically updated to fix problems and include new features.

I assume that by the time everyone else is using IPv6 I shall be too (simply by virtue of my software being updated).

So, why should I care? And what should I do if I did care?

Re:Why should most people (including 'nerds') care (3, Insightful)

anticypher (48312) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514528)

Why? Your money is why.

If you want to continue to use an IPv4 address from your upstream ISP, you currently pay about US$10 per month for that address, more if you want a nice static address to run services on.

After 2012, or if one of the hair-brained free-market schemes to buy & sell netblocks comes into effect, the price your ISP has to pay for an IP address goes from ZERO to $10 or $20 per month per address. Currently, with a freely available pool of IP addresses, there was minimal cost associated with obtaining a netblock, just some administrative overhead to ask, and some technical cost to program the routers. ISPs discovered that they could charge US$30/month to a user, of which $10/month covers bandwidth, $10/month for the connection, and the remaining $10/month is the pure profit from renting you an individually addressable IP address.

When the crunch hits, IPv4 addresses will be accounted differently, no longer will they be seen as a free resource that earns $10/month, they'll be seen as a cost center that needs to have a margin associated with it. So if the company has to start paying even $1/month per address, they'll pass that cost on to the end users as a higher monthly fee.

In the end, those who don't have an IPv6 service with a migration strategy will see their internet connectivity increase in price. Maybe only a little in 2010, more in 2012, and if there isn't a mass migration to v6, significant costs after that. You, and every consumer, better hope that ISPs and hosting centers get a migration strategy in place soon, or your costs are going to skyrocket.

That was costs from the consumer PoV.

From the techie PoV, imagine what will happen to your router FIBs if some of those nicely aggregated /8s and /16s de-aggregate into 100s of thousands of individual prefixes. Is there any Cisco router right now that can handle a BGP IPv4 routing table of 2 million entries? Are you willing to scrap your entire Border Router investment in 2010 when the routing table grows from 300,000 routes to 750,000 routes? Do you know what the cost of a Cisco CRS-1 is, even if you can find one used?

the AC

we had Y2K (1)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514262)

no we have Y2K0xA

Three Things for Widespread IPV6 Acceptance: (5, Informative)

JoeD (12073) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514292)


1. Home routers that support IPV6 off the shelf.

2. Cable/DSL modems that support IPV6 off the shelf.

3. (The biggie) ISPs that hand out IPV6 addresses.

In a vain attempt to forestall the inevitable followups:

Yes, I am aware that I could install new software in my WRT-54G, and convert my home network to IPV6. But as long as my upstream connection is IPV4, this gains me NOTHING except a bunch of aggravation and downtime getting the thing set up. No thanks. When my ISP supports IPV6, then and only then will it make sense for me to convert.

400GB of v6 porn online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22514390)

http://prujem.cz/ [prujem.cz] ... unlike ipv6porn.com, this one actually has some interesting content ;-)

Class 'C' address space for sale. (2, Interesting)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514456)

The company died and no longer needs it. Maybe I will put it up on ebay.

Why not use greater than 32 bit addresses ? (1)

dam.capsule.org (183256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514510)

I know that IPV6 support 128 bit addresses but it also has a lot of other improvement/differences that might be slowing down it's adoption. Why not keep the IPV4 protocol but just changing the ip address size?

This certainly is a stupid idea but please explain me why.

Heard that before... (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 6 years ago | (#22514586)

http://www.glocom.org/tech_reviews/tech_bulle/20020227_bulle_s2/index.html [glocom.org]

"We will run out of IP addresses by 2008." (ICANN 2001) The estimate was derived by assuming that the number of remaining addresses as of 2000 was about 1.7 billion and demand for new IP addresses will be 75 million in 2000, and moreover that demand for IP addresses will increase in a geometric progression after 2001. Based on these assumptions, the addresses would be depleting by 2008 if demand grows by a factor of 1.3 each year, and by 2006 if it grows by a factor of 1.5.

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

Loading...