The 69/8 Networking Problem

jaredmauch writes "A number of networking providers who receive address space from ARIN have been having problems with their recent IP space allocations. This is a result of outdated filters that applied a few years ago during the boom time of the net, but have not been updated to reflect the current state of the network. Here is a paper that documents some of the problems this filtering is causing providers."

Comments

I have a 69/8 address

[DetrimentalFiend]

...and although most places have finally gotten their act together, this is still a bit of a problem for us. Our ISP has been working quite hard to get people to update their filters (the ISP was one of the first to get addresses in this space), but it's still a bit of a problem. Hopefully being on the front page of slashdot will help the problem some.

Roll on IPv6

[The Real Chrisjc]

I would love everything to be IPv6 now, but it ain't gonna happen for atleast 10 years I think. Even new equipment hasn't got IPv6 :(
That would solve problems like this, and create lots of lovely new ones :/

If only the world was perfect eh?

Re:Roll on IPv6

[rusty0101]

What new equipment does not support IPv6?

BSD, Linux, MacOS X, and Windows XP, all have support for IPv6 in their network stack. Current Cisco IOS supports IPv6.

There are some applications that go too far into the network stack to properly support IPv6, but those are applications.

The main stumbling block to IPv6 that I see right now is that very few network people in the US know how to use it. Outside of the US, both in Europe and Asia, IPv6 is being deployed fairly widely, as they do not have the IPv4 address space availabable and allocated to make use of it except in servers and routers.

As there are several gateways available, to allow IPv6 clients to access IPv4 servers, I suspect that the demand upone US providers to start supporting IPv6 devices is going to be long in comming.

With 10 devices in my house that support IP, (live at the moment, several others not currently powered up) I would exceed the available IP addresses my ISP account allows. As a result I am effectively forced to use NAT and private IP address space, even if my ISP would rather I did not. On top of that I don't want to keep a bunch of systems widely available to script kiddies. IPv6 would not solve that problem.

Then again, that's probably just all opinion on my part.

-Rusty

Love those dusty old filters...

[PZona]

I sometimes wonder, given all the tech layoffs in the last two years, if half the 'net was left running on autopilot. Keeping the filters up to date with current practices would be a lot more likely if there was an adequate number of admins left to man the guns.

69/8? Screw 'em!

[Anonymous Struct]

When I started working for the company I'm working for, whose name shall remain unpublished, there was a bit of funny going on with the ip addressing schemes of our various offices. Instead of fooling around with that silly private address space nonsense, they just went allocating /8 blocks devil-may-care, one for each office, and I'll just say there were more than ten of them. Oddest bit was, nobody really seemed to notice all that much, except for the few odd folks who'd try to visit their alma mater's website and met with frustration every time. 128/8 and 129/8 were mysteriously always unavailable.

So 69/8 is blacked out? Ah, big deal. At least the dba can get to Oracle's website now. 192/8 was an office with about 60 people, if you can believe that. Strange folks out there setting up networks. Shield your young.

Re:Not surprising

[jmt9581]

Curse slashdot for making me wonder "I Am Not A What?" as I skimmed over this comment . . .

While IANAL (linguist, not lawyer :) the namespace for acronyms is really becoming overcrowded. :)

Re:Not surprising

[Wild Wizard]

handy link on 0.0.0.0

Re:Not surprising

[hardcode]

IANAIANA

I am not an internet assigned numbers authority

hc