Asia Running Out Of IP Addresses

70% Seems fair by WinterSolstice · 2003-05-28 08:05 · Score: 0, Funny

I guess that's our return on the whole dot-bomb thing :) -WS

--
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.

Re:70% Seems fair by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Give em a few of those linksys routers...
Re:70% Seems fair by agentZ · 2003-05-28 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny

It means that all of your IP addresses are belong to us. Wait a second--
Re:70% Seems fair by Sexy+Commando · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Aren't Linksys routers made in Taiwan?
Re:70% Seems fair by Xformer · 2003-05-28 08:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Should get them a shipping discount, if nothing else .

--
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
Re:70% Seems fair by haraldm · 2003-05-28 20:23 · Score: 1

The US, having about 4% of the world population, also owns (claims) 70% of all other resources. Why should IP be any different?

--
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
Re:70% Seems fair by zero_offset · 2003-05-29 02:47 · Score: 1

Or our return for inventing the whole thing in the first place.

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

IPv6 soon? by zoloto · 2003-05-28 08:06 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm still waiting for duke nukem forever!

Re:IPv6 soon? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:17 · Score: 0

Duke Nukem Forever will run fine across IPv6.
Re:IPv6 soon? by onomatomania · 2003-05-28 12:00 · Score: 1

Ah, the slashdot classics, they never get old... Instant Karma, every time.

They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Idimmu+Xul · 2003-05-28 08:07 · Score: 1, Redundant

They should really swap to IPV6 then.

I mean, thats the point of the protocol. Complaining about a lack of addresses and not using IPV6 is a bit silly.

--
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!

Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Sexy+Commando · 2003-05-28 08:11 · Score: 5, Informative

China and Japan will invest millions to develop IPv6. For example, June last year, both governments pledged US$32 million into network construction and testing, system development, application technology development and standardization, she said
RTFA
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by nocomment · 2003-05-28 08:16 · Score: 1

Funny thing is, the ipv6 site seems to be /.'d! And it was only mentioned in passing.

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 0

WTF didn't a country as big as China go IPV6 when they first rolled out? There are some advantages to coming late to the party!
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by frisket · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Better, they should cut off all the Chinese spammers. You'd free up maybe half the 22M addresses that way.
I don't want to buy a goddamn bulldozer from Gung-Ho Province.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:21 · Score: 0

I guess you are so brainwashed with propoganda you didn't realize the united states only leads the world in technology for killing.

In technology for communications north europe and asia is smoking the USA.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by cloudmaster · 2003-05-28 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

That, or they should just take all of the addressess that are listed in all the RBLs and reassign them. Korea alone has several ranges that are being wasted... :)
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:27 · Score: 2, Funny

IPv6 doesn't really exist though, like santa, the tooth fairy and eskimos....
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:33 · Score: 0

Oh yea, ghey mobile phones with "even better SMS" is really leading the way in tech. WHO BROUGHT YOU THE INTERNET? Huh, chauncey?!?
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:41 · Score: 0

Truth == flamebait, apparently....
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by twinkyminator · 2003-05-28 08:44 · Score: 1, Funny

Oh, thats true, but to see them (ipv6, santa, tooth fairy and stuff) you have to belive in them!

It's like peter pan (and LSD, for whoever that may concern) you can fly if you belive you can...
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:51 · Score: 0

Mobile phones that work everywhere. The US needed to have their own standard. Just like the inferior NTSC.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by TillmanJ · 2003-05-28 08:59 · Score: 1

Hey Coward, I think he said 'bankroll the whole thing' not 'invent the whole thing'. Learn to read troll-boy...
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Fishstick · 2003-05-28 09:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Banky: Alright, now see this? This is a four-way road, OK? And dead in the center is a crisp, new, hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of these streets are four people, OK? Are you following?

Holden: Yeah.

Banky: Good. Over here, we have a male-affectionate, easy to get along with, non-political agenda lesbian. Down here, we have a man-hating, angry as fuck, agenda of rage, bitter dyke. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first?

Holden: What is this supposed to prove?

Banky: No, I'm serious. This is a serious exercise. It's like an SAT question. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first? The male-friendly lesbian, the man-hating dyke, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny?

Holden: The man-hating dyke.

Banky: Good. Why?

Holden: I don't know.

Banky: Because the other three are figments of your fucking imagination!

--
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:04 · Score: 0

We have sat phones for that, and even triple band. Point is, nobody wants these because of added bulk AND BECAUSE EUROPE SUCKS ANYWAY. Ok, you got me... PAL is better than NTSC. But we have come up with something called HDTV, which you will no doubt have opportunity to complain about in a later post. Ever wonder why domain names are in ASCII? The US. Ever wonder why the US phone prefix is #1? I think you see where that one is going. WHY DO ALL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS REGARDLESS OF COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH? Here's a hint: It's not because of England!
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:08 · Score: 0

The US is bankrolling the world so that they can put bases everywhere and get their hands in all the (real) honeypots. Did you see how much they offered Turkey to be able to attack Iraq from there? And how much are they spending on Iraq now so that they can camp out there and make sure that the oil will flow?

You think people around the world are happy about that? That the US is spending all this money to slip into places?

Governments dealing with governments while citizens suffer
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by telstar · 2003-05-28 09:15 · Score: 1
"I don't want to buy a goddamn bulldozer from Gung-Ho Province."
- I'd be happy if PrintPal would stop sending me spam. I call them up every day to complain about it. I figure I've got 5 minutes everyday, and they've got an 800 number. It's a nice way to let off some steam.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:24 · Score: 0

Well of course not, why bother innovating when you can just pull a worldcom, get rich and laugh all the way to the bank...I mean we all know those fuckers won't see any jail. They'll just see a big mansion in florida...actually innovate? Why bother! This is america, if your scam is large enough and you're white you get to keep the winnings! Real innovation is for suckers. (and europeans and asians).
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by nempo · 2003-05-28 10:18 · Score: 0, Flamebait

HDTV, thought that came from some consortium of mostly asian companies.

Actually, they do speak english because of england (read brittish colonies).

--
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by CTalkobt · 2003-05-28 10:42 · Score: 1

...both governments(non-US) pledged US$32 million into ...

Question: Why do other governments than the US pledge US dollars? Isn't that a little bit unfair taking advantage of the US like that?

Geesh...

--
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:52 · Score: 0

Ever wonder why domain names are in ASCII?
Ignorant americans who thought there were just 7 bits in a byte?
WHY DO ALL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS REGARDLESS OF COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH?
Why is it that english is called ENGLISH? Maybe it's because it's English? What's your point?
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by dadragon · 2003-05-28 10:57 · Score: 1

The American press converts values of other countries into US dollars when posting news in the USA. Just like in Canada, you'd see it as C$43 million.

--
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by jorgen · 2003-05-28 11:00 · Score: 1

Better, they should cut off all the Chinese spammers. You'd free up maybe half the 22M addresses that way.
And what about the US spammers? I bet we could instantly double the available bandwidth of the whole net just by cutting the wires to Boca Raton, US.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ever wonder why the US phone prefix is #1?

Because the telephone was invented by Alexder Graham Bell in Canada, and the US shares a telephone prefix with Canada.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Lemmy+Caution · 2003-05-28 11:03 · Score: 1

Which, of course, makes many of the RBL's useless or next to useless to those of us with colleagues and friends in Korea.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by jorgen · 2003-05-28 11:07 · Score: 1

WHO BROUGHT YOU THE INTERNET? Huh, chauncey?!?
Al, is that you?
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Genom · 2003-05-28 12:13 · Score: 1

While they're at it, think they could do the same to the Korean ones? 90-95% of the spam I get is Korean in origin, and language. You'd think they'd want to send their spam to people who can actually read it ;P
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:02 · Score: 0

Uh, you win the prize for stating the obvious.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by shibbydude · 2003-05-28 16:46 · Score: 1

Can you draw me a picture?

--
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Alan+Partridge · 2003-05-28 21:43 · Score: 1

If you think conspicuous consumption is reserved for American plutocrats/criminals, you should visit Monaco some time.

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by sepluv · 2003-05-29 06:34 · Score: 1

WHO BROUGHT YOU THE INTERNET? Huh, chauncey?!?
Who brought you the WWW?
(The Internet was just a network (which, incidentally, no one used before the Web) and it was invented for "defence" purposes so it does not count - see grandparent.)
Come to that, who invented the computer?

--
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-11 11:11 · Score: 0

or German concentration camps, and the so call holocaust. riiight........ sick i know

This again? by FatSean · 2003-05-28 08:07 · Score: 5, Funny

The world has been running out of IP addresses, and suffering from global warming for as long as I can remember...

--
Blar.

Re:This again? by TopShelf · 2003-05-28 08:11 · Score: 4, Funny

yeah, next thing you know they'll be carping about us running out of fossil fuels...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:This again? by theedge318 · 2003-05-28 08:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Now if only we could figure out how to use NAT's to solve the global warming problem or the fossil fuel shortage.

--
Sig Nazi- "No Sig for you, come back 1 year."
Re:This again? by HermanZA · 2003-05-28 08:25 · Score: 1

Well actually, I can remember when the world was suffering from global cooling...
Fads keep changing.
Re:This again? by jtn · 2003-05-28 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

But NAT hasn't solved any "IP shortage" problem, either. It has merely postponed the inevitable and at the same time completely broken the end-to-end nature of the Internet. Think of how many applications are broken and require twisted special cases to be handled by a NAT gateway..
Re:This again? by Deanasc · 2003-05-28 08:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Didn't they start running out of addresses the minute the first address was issued?

--
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Re:This again? by puppet10 · 2003-05-28 08:49 · Score: 3, Funny

and fusion power is 40 years away from commercial practicality...

--
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Re:This again? by operagost · 2003-05-28 08:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Where's my flying car?
At least we do have handheld video phones now (sort of).

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:This again? by SunPin · 2003-05-28 09:01 · Score: 1

It will come out right after they can fuel it with chicken shit.

--
Laws are for people with no friends.
Re:This again? by Andrewkov · 2003-05-28 12:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, but winters over and we're into spring now... And I hear that they have the opposite problem in Australia!
Re:This again? by pete-classic · 2003-05-28 13:37 · Score: 1

I've heard that the first Earth Day was to raise awareness of the menace of "Global Cooling."

The Earth Day people won't return my emails (which I sort of take as a tacit admission).

Can you confirm this?

-Peter
Re:This again? by tolan-b · 2003-05-28 23:48 · Score: 1

>Where's my flying car?

right here :)
(ok so you can't buy one yet, but it exists...)
http://www.moller.com/

IPv6? by Tumbleweed · 2003-05-28 08:07 · Score: 1

Nah, NAT will solve the problem - about a zillion times less expensive to implement.

Re:IPv6? by Sexy+Commando · 2003-05-28 08:16 · Score: 2, Informative

NAT is simply not the long term solution, and it is going to cause headaches when dealing with wireless devices.
Re:IPv6? by pVoid · 2003-05-28 08:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah... NAT off the great firewall of China.
I can just see in the far far future, when there will be sentient computer programs, they will refer to China as "the anti-matter land"...
"Mother sentient program: In the anti-matter land, there is someone with the exact same IP address as yours son...
Child sentient program: Woooww..."
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

You should boycott all US-based Internet services and products. That should send a good message.

Of course, good luck sending that good message when you, by choice, can no longer access the bulk of the Internet.
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 0

we only bankrolled the damn thing when it started. nah, we shouldn't get any perks because of that.

fucktard
Re:IPv6? by DJ+Rubbie · 2003-05-28 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Nah, NAT will solve the problem - about a zillion times less expensive to implement.

Nope, absolutely wrong.

While all computers on the same NAT can directly connect to others, it cannot do so easily to others on another NAT, or other 'real' IP addresses. This effectively prevents anyone from running any server that can serve to networks outside the NAT, unless some ports are designated at the NAT router level specificly for that particular server. I don't see ISP's or network admins designating specific port ranges for every computer, as it takes work, and it could conflict with applications that uses specific port ranges (such as file transfers on MSN used by illiterate users who can't use ftp).

I would say using NAT to solve this problem is all but a cheap bandage that will cost more in the long run. IPv6 must be implemented soon to ensure the continue growth of the Internet.

--
Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null
Re:IPv6? by akgunkel · 2003-05-28 08:27 · Score: 1

NAT is a hack, not solution.

I personally would like to have world-addressable IP addresses for all the machines on my home network, but the cost is out of my range at the moment. In China, it will be totally impossible for not only home and small office networks, but many ISPs as well. Just the cost of getting an address for *one* server will become insane. IPv6 is the way to go. Period.
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:31 · Score: 0

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

They hate us because we are superior to every country and every civilization in every possible way. They wish they could have wet dreams of being half as good as we are but they never will because they suck.
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:33 · Score: 0

Gee, I am looking for something... ah there it is.

My middle finger.

Maybe you could solve some problems by not being so damn stupid.
Re:IPv6? by AKnightCowboy · 2003-05-28 08:34 · Score: 1

Or perhaps the US could solve the problem by not being so damn greedy? IP Everywhere... not just the US!
I can see some poor peasant farmer in China cheering you on. Perhaps someday he can work enough to afford running water and a toilet and his sons may be able to afford electricity. In 2-3 more generations they may even be able to get a television and eventually a computer. Doubt it.
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:40 · Score: 0

don't express your own opinion, especially if it runs counter to that of the Americans

Don't you find it ironic that you're using an American technology to criticize America? If you hate Americans so much, then stop using everything that we've given to everyone else on this ungrateful rock.
Re:IPv6? by York+the+Mysterious · 2003-05-28 09:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

My old school district had a neat NAT setup. Every server in the district had the same NATed IP, but if you made a request for the DNS address of a server on a specific allowed port it wold forward it to the internal IP. Very smart NAT. It also makes a lot of port scanners that require IPs worthless.
mail.nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on port 80 go to 10.10.10.3:80
mail.nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on 25 goes to 10.10.10.3:25
nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on port 80 goes to 10.10.10.2
It was probably loads of fun to manually set this up, but it works

--

Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:04 · Score: 0

Or perhaps the US could solve the problem by not being so damn greedy?

"Slashdot is owned by Open Source Development Network, Inc. ("OSDN")"
"OSDN is a wholly owned subsidiary of VA Software Corporation."
"VA Software Corporation
47071 Bayside Parkway
Fremont, California 94538 USA
(877) 825-4689 toll free
(510) 687-7000 phone
(510) 226-8833 fax"

Just thought you'd like to know where to direct your appreciation for the free Slashdot service you enjoy so much. That's right, it's in America.

While I can't speak directly for the administration of Slashdot, OSDN or VA, I can say that we here in America take one's freedom of speech very seriously. You have every right to your opinion and you can express it all you want. Just remember that you're eating up some American computons when you use Slashdot to express those opinions.
Re:IPv6? by JohnFluxx · 2003-05-28 09:09 · Score: 1

uh this is just port forwarding.
It's no biggie - see my howto on ip masq, where I cover port forwarding in post-install bit.

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Masquerading-Simple-HOWTO/ po st-install.html
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:17 · Score: 0

I agree for IPv6 but reallocating IP's would be great as an intermediate step. The IPs are just wasted.

I also agree the NAT cannot be a solution for an ISP because of limitions (problems with a bunch of protocols like ftp, h323, most of p2p,...) which affect end-users.
For the details about the problems take a look to
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3235.txt
Re:IPv6? by JohnFluxx · 2003-05-28 09:17 · Score: 1

Hmm, I can't seem to find where I defined port forwarding.. I could of sworn I put it in..

From a google'd site..

For port forwarding xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8888 to 192.168.0.2:80 . /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth0 -d xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx --dport 8888 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2:80
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:22 · Score: 0

>I personally would like to have world-addressable IP
> addresses for all the machines on my home network,

If the IPs were redistributed this must be possible. Large IP ranges are just used by nobody. Waste, waste...
Re:IPv6? by Simon+Lyngshede · 2003-05-28 09:42 · Score: 1

This works great, I do volunteer system administration and we use something similar. However what ever runs the NAT'ing (most likely your firewall) most be able to handle the traffic. Also if the NAT box crashe you lose everything at once.
Re:IPv6? by Skapare · 2003-05-28 09:47 · Score: 1

Yes, NAT is a hack. And it works adequately for most. But is IPv6 really any better if you can't get your address space? I'm sure that if there was an incentive to switch to IPv6, more would be doing it.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:IPv6? by El · 2003-05-28 10:02 · Score: 1

Yes, NAT sucks for servers, but in most environments, less than 5% of the nodes are servers... although I guess NAT would wreak havoc with peer-to-peer filesharing. Even though in theory the problem can be solved by mapping specific ports to different internal IP address, in practice this make setting up your router/firewall a real pain.

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:06 · Score: 0

Well, the internet was invented here first...
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:12 · Score: 0

Jeez, who DOESN'T hate America? And for good reason.

I'm not speaking rhetorically here. We suck. The sooner the ash heap of history reclaims our sorry excuse for "culture" and "progress" the sooner the human race can move on to ANYTHING better. Hell, screaming anarachy has more to offer than our country.

When the US is gone and forgotten, I'll say good riddance.
Re:IPv6? by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:25 · Score: 1

Switch to IPv6 now. That would have the effect of boycotting most of the US immediately.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:29 · Score: 0

The US made the internet. If you don't like it, start your own.
Re:IPv6? by |<amikaze · 2003-05-28 12:26 · Score: 1

Uhm... I don't believe that DNS cares what port you're trying to access.
Re:IPv6? by JohnnyCannuk · 2003-05-28 12:31 · Score: 1

See? I'm modded as a troll!
Wow.

As for you, ass-wipe, no I don't find it ironic at all. Your "American" invention (I assume you mean the net) and all the components that runs on it (or it runs on) are based on the scientific knowledge and inventions of at least one Canadian (Alexander Graham Bell)and a bunch of Europeans (Niels Bohr, Werner Hiesenberg, Marconi, Einstein, Tesla just to name a few).

Where does it say I have to give up my freedom to criticize, my opinions and my freedom of expression to use something that was invented in a particular nation? If that's the logic, all you diabetic Yanks better stop criticizing Canada and Canadians - it's ironic that you are still alive to criticize a country whose techology/invention keeps you alive (insulin).

Don't you find it ironic that you are using a technology originally intended for the free exchange of scientific ideas to stifle freedom and to blindly agree with everything your country does?

Just because an opinion is not the same as that of mainstream US culture doesn't make it evil or wrong.

I don't hate Americans (since a big chunk of my family live there and are US citizens). Call our criticizm "constructive".

--
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Re:IPv6? by bumby · 2003-05-28 13:44 · Score: 1

Read it once more, he says:

mail.nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on port 80 go to 10.10.10.3:80
nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on port 80 goes to 10.10.10.2

Since when do "just port forwarding" forward connection to same port, to different hosts?

As he said, they check which domainname the client connects to, and redirect the connection to on of their internal (behind the nat) servers acording to this.

--
Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
Re:IPv6? by bumby · 2003-05-28 13:51 · Score: 1

It was probably loads of fun to manually set this up, but it works

Well, the problem could be solved (not for your school district, but overall) by simply redirect all incoming connections to the correct computer behind the nat, with the same technic as your school there.

But that would rise a new problem, we would be out of domainnames! Imagine aaaaaa...aa.zzzz.jp, aaaaaa...ab.zzzz.jp ;)

--
Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:05 · Score: 0

...are based on the scientific knowledge and inventions of at least one Canadian (Alexander Graham Bell)and a bunch of Europeans...

Since when is Alexander Graham Bell Canadian? Unless Scotland was once part of Canada I think you are mistaken...
Re:IPv6? by cbare · 2003-05-28 15:46 · Score: 1

Lots of government (not just china) would probably like to reduce the decentralized nature of the internet.

Who knows, maybe changing the internet into a hierarchical structure of NATs on top of NATs might be a nice way to more efficiently filter or inspect all traffic within a given subnet, or between subnets.

--
-cbare
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 16:07 · Score: 0

I don't hate America.
Just because you and you friends do, doesn't mean you to be so closeminded as to the think the whole world hates the USA. But it is a typical geek problem. Microsoft is teh suxor, and BSD is dying in Slashdot's world. Just like in your small world, US is an evil country, populated by only evil people. It has never done one decent thing, and never will. Right?
Re:IPv6? by feldmark · 2003-05-28 18:08 · Score: 1

Nah, NAT will solve the problem - about a zillion times less expensive to implement.

Oddly, my ISP here in Beijing recently switched from NAT based IP addresses to global IP addresses. Which of course was fine with me and I now run a high traffic e-commerce site on it. :-)

One issue, esp in China may be with the government's desire to monitor users. If everyone has their own number, then no matter where I go, the powers that be can tell who I was. Still possible with NAT, but requires somewhat more backtracing tracing effort.

Global IP address would also make it easier to block individual users from certain services. Or in my case, I wish they would use it to allow me individualized access to project.sourceforge.net sites. (Which sourceforge aids by making it easy to do despite requests for help in preventing it..... sigh...)

So my bet is on China adopting IPv6 for better traceability of users. On the plus side, 1.3 billion potential users may help push the rest of the world in that direction also.
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 21:59 · Score: 0

He was an immigrant from Scotland but was a canadian at the point of inventing teh telephone.
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 00:20 · Score: 0

Your "American" invention (I assume you mean the net) and all the components that runs on it (or it runs on) are based on the scientific knowledge and inventions of at least one Canadian (Alexander Graham Bell)and a bunch of Europeans (Niels Bohr, Werner Hiesenberg, Marconi, Einstein, Tesla just to name a few).

And why did many of these people come to AMERICA to invent what they invented? Its because their home countries suck, and they knew they would never get ahead by working there. History shows that if more countries acted like America, the world would be better off.
Re:IPv6? by JohnnyCannuk · 2003-05-29 00:31 · Score: 1

Like Hiesenberg...oh wait, he stayed in Germany. Ok Einstien...oh wait, he came to the States in the 30's due to Nazi persecution of the Jews, years AFTER he had come up with Relativity and Special Relativity. Ok, AGB...oh wait, he invented the telephone in Brantford Ontario, just outside Toronto and simply patented it in the US. How bout Bohr...oh wait, wasn't he in Norway until the end of WWII?

I guess these people just SOLD their ideas to you guys and your corporations created the "we invented it" myth to sell more crap....

It's the "America is the greatest, the rest of the world sucks" attitude that makes other countries and people not like you.

--
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Re:IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 05:50 · Score: 0

So now we are taking credit for immigrants? He was an american citizen too you know. I guess that doesn't count...

"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by jat850 · 2003-05-28 08:07 · Score: 1

I sure as hell hope so ... ~3.4^38 addresses or so, if I remember right?

--
the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
the me that you know is now made up of wires

Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Steven+Blanchley · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 0

The "perhaps" is because by the time IPv6 is widely implemented, we may already be needing IPv8.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by -brazil- · 2003-05-28 08:17 · Score: 1

Considering that IPv6 offers more than a million IP adresses for every square meter of the earth, not bloody likely.

--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by emcron · 2003-05-28 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

IPv6 will not run out of addresses - it will use 128-bit address space. This is 4 Billion times 4 Billion times 4 Billion times the size of the IPv4 address space. This works out to approximately 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 IP addresses per square meter of the surface of the planet Earth. Plenty of addresses for both your toaster and your waffle iron.

More here: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/INET-IPng- Paper.html
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by plague3106 · 2003-05-28 08:36 · Score: 1, Troll

This works out to approximately 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 IP addresses per square meter of the surface of the planet Earth.

I live in the 3rd dimension, and have 2 families living directly below me. Also keep in mind that the population of humans is growing pretty fast...so it may be possible to run out of IPv6 addresses too. How soon, who knows...but saying that it won't happen is like saying no one will ever need more then 640k of memory..
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:46 · Score: 0

Try again....

That's 3.4*10^38, or 2^128.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by DJ+Rubbie · 2003-05-28 08:48 · Score: 1

Actually, in the future we might use up the entire IPv9 address space. Read RFC 1606.

--
Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:49 · Score: 0

perhaps when you start assigning ip's to every cell in all living creatures.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by SeattleGameboy · 2003-05-28 08:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Are you an just ignorant idiot or IQ-challenged fool who refuses to learn ANY mathmatics? Dude! Read the post! It clearly states IPV6 will provide 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 per square meter of the planet earth!!! If you believe you will have 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 story tall building convering every square inch of this planet within next million billion years - you are an idiot. READ before you post... READ before you post... Keep repeating that yourself.... IDIOT!
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by jat850 · 2003-05-28 08:51 · Score: 1

Ah, thanks for the clarification, I figured it was 128-bit address space but I calculated it wrong.

--
the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
the me that you know is now made up of wires
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by McAddress · 2003-05-28 08:55 · Score: 1

Hmm. Let me see. I need some redundancy here
how about 2 for my toaster, 4 for my fridge, the salmon in my fridge needs to run its own server ....
Lets see: that adds up to 665,570,793,348,872,943,898,749.
does anyone have any extra addresses I can borrow?
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by GigsVT · 2003-05-28 08:56 · Score: 1

And this is the main thing about IPv6 that I think is stupid and will hinder adoption.

If they had just done the reasonable thing and went to a 64 or even 48 bit address space, we would have nice, easy to remember addresses, and still have more than enough for the rest of any of our lives.

48 bits would have made the address space about 65,000 times larger, and the IP addresses would still only be 6 octets, completely reasonable to memorize, and DNS records would look like:

64.112.122.109.10.20.ipGigs.arpa. IN PTR host2.mydomain.org.au.

Instead of:

d.0.0.0.c.0.0.0.b.0.0.0.a.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.f.f.f.f. 1. 0.5.0.e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa.
IN PTR host2.mydomain.org.au.

You think DNS is fucked up now?? Just wait until admins have to type 32 letters and numbers in without making one typo!

So instead of doign the reasonable thing, the creators of IPv6 just pulled some huge number of bits out of their ass. Why does anyone wonder why no one uses IPv6?

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:58 · Score: 0

You sir neat to give your head a small shake!
Have you look at the numbers?? PER SQUARE METER!

In addition, the population growth rate of the world has consistenly been slowing down. I somehow doubt that 2^127 +- (a bit) addresses will be needed.
Until the day that we've got the internet covering most of the galaxy too!
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by operagost · 2003-05-28 08:58 · Score: 1

I bet the telecoms and ISPs will still try to charge you extra for a "static" IP though ... we'll have a hard time explaining to the AOLers why they're getting ripped off.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:58 · Score: 0

Okay... and nobody will ever need more then 640k.

Gezz, when will people learn?! Why create upper limits unnecessarily? No one thought IP4 would run out either...

Open ended systems, anything less is just lazy.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by hesiod · 2003-05-28 08:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

> How soon, who knows...but saying that it won't happen is like saying no one will ever need more then 640k of memory..

Considering the scale of this issue, it seems more like a homo erectus saying "No one need fire. Too hot and not portable, like Linux." Well, except for the Linux thing.

But seriously, I think the planet itself would be long gone before that many IP addresses was even close to being used. Until, of course, nanobots start self-replicating and join the Internet Continuum & start taking IPs (those dirty bastards).
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Pieroxy · 2003-05-28 09:08 · Score: 1

Exactly! Foreseeing the future is too hard for me but the nanorobots joining the Internet is defitively the way to go to run out of IPv6 !!!

Soon every one of my cells (unfortunately including braincells) will have it's own nano-robot connected to the internet so that I can reprogram them.

Might want to watch closer for viruses though...

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Erisian+Pope · 2003-05-28 09:10 · Score: 2, Funny

I live in the 3rd dimension, and have 2 families living directly below me. Also keep in mind that the population of humans is growing pretty fast...so it may be possible to run out of IPv6 addresses too.

Wow! You must live on a pretty big planet. The one I'm on couldn't possibly support enough people to run out of IPv6 addresses.

I did a little math. Turns out that with 2^128 addresses, 1000 addresses per person, it'd take 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211 people to use them all. Averaging that these people way around 90kg (180 lbs), they come to a mass of 3.0625e37 kg. For some comparison, the earth's mass is 5.972e24 kg, our sun is 1.989e30 kg. Thats more mass than is in my whole galaxy!
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by pclminion · 2003-05-28 09:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one thought IP4 would run out either...
Even if there were a billion trillion people on Earth, each person would still have 340 thousand trillion addresses. Assuming you have about 50 trillion cells in your body, this means you can assign nearly 7000 IPv6 addresses to each cell in your body.
If you think that's limited, you seriously need your head checked out.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by harrv · 2003-05-28 09:20 · Score: 1

What about nano-technology? When the Borg take over the earth, won't each of those cellular-level bits in our blood stream need to be addressable?
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:20 · Score: 0

who are you calling idiot?
right now, there are X number of IP addresses per square meter of the earth... of course, too bad for you if you live in china, because your fair share is not available to you.
the american phone numbering system provides for some substantial portion of 9,999,999,999 telephones with numbers. are there that many? are there even that many people? if not, how can we be running out of numbers? well, we are running out of numbers.
the same will happen to IPV6. after setting aside (as you suggest) 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 per square meter, what will in-flight airplanes use? you've already run out.
as the poster said, it's like saying we'll never need more than 640K of RAM: the sort of statement that does not qualify you for "visionary" status.
it might qualify you for "idiot", though.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by vadim_t · 2003-05-28 09:22 · Score: 1

Eh, who cares? As if you had to type IP addresses that often. IIRC, IPv6 has DHCP or something similar in the protocol so you don't have to enter the DNS address by hand. And there's the "::" thing too.

Going to 48 or 64 bit would be dumb. First, a part of the address space will always be lost to the organization. Second, we might need to upgrade again. Why have this insane mess a second time? Just look at what happened with hard disks. There are maybe 20 disk size limits! If somebody had the great idea of updating computers to manage disks of 2^128 bytes then we'd have got of this mess a long time ago.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Sausage · 2003-05-28 09:42 · Score: 1

I can see us not having a shortage in the next few years, but I can see us moving out into space, onto space stations, and such, maybe even onto differnt planets, maybe not in my life time but maybe my grandkids life time.

and as soon as we start expanding, maybe hooking up an alien world to our network so that we call all communicate, we very well could start running, out, I think that for the moment, at 48bit or 64bit address would have been enough, cause it means that it is still memorable, I dont ever see my remembering all the IPv6 addresses in my flat never mind my buisness, even if I had it written down, their would be so many typos

just my 2c worth

Sausage
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Pyrometer · 2003-05-28 09:48 · Score: 1

IPv6 will not run out of addresses
No one will ever need more than 640k ... ehhh "4 Billion times 4 Billion times 4 Billion times the size of the IPv4 address space" ;)
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by tomhudson · 2003-05-28 09:51 · Score: 1

...how about 2 for my toaster, 4 for my fridge,...
They were showing that stupid "Internet Fridge" on the news a couple of days ago. $CDN12,000.00. I guess that, at that price, it should come with its' own IP thrown in.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Steven+Blanchley · 2003-05-28 10:07 · Score: 1

Damn, I thought "IPv6 will never be widely adopted" jokes were still considered funny. Guess I jumped on the bandwagon a bit too late. (Or was it not obvious enough that I was joking?)
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by GigsVT · 2003-05-28 10:12 · Score: 1

If somebody had the great idea of updating computers to manage disks of 2^128 bytes then we'd have got of this mess a long time ago.

There's a reason for that though. Computers don't generally operate with a natural data type that is 128 bits long yet. There are many reasons you don't want to exceed the natural data size of the computer, performance primarily, but also that means you can't do math as an atomic operation, so you risk something reading your data when you are half done (or in the case of 32 bit computers with 128 bit numbers, 1/4th done) processing it, which causes corruption.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by phyrestang · 2003-05-28 10:14 · Score: 1

I think that the point the original poster was trying to make is that although it is technically possible to run out of address space, when it comes down to it, it is not likely to happen anytime in the near future. As it stands right now if you were to assign 1 billion IPv6 addresses to EACH person on the planet you would still not remotely approach using the full address space.

Think about it: IPv6 allows for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768, 211,456 total addresses. Can you think of that many things to assign an address to? I know I can't.

Let's say you were to cover the entire earths surface with people. Each one taking up a square meter of space. You'd have 511,263,971,197,990 people total. Now in order to exhaust the IPv6 address space you would have to assign each person 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 individual addresses. That's a hell of a lot of addresses. Possible to run out? Sure. Going to happen? Not bloody likely. Especially considering that by the time it is possible to run out, we'd have moved onto a completely different system.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:26 · Score: 0

Roughly speaking, if we limit ourselves to the planet earth, there is approximately one IPv6 address for every billion atoms. Even if we play conservative and assume that the average human weighs 10kg (22 pounds), that means that each human, just by virtue of being made up of atoms and living on earth, would get a few hundred trillion IPv6 addresses. The average American then (about 1000kg, i.e. one tonne) would get over a quadrillion IPv6 addresses.
Of course one could argue that doling out IP addresses according to mass is a bit unfair, but it should prove that we have enough IPv6 addresses to go around.
As long as we live on earth, that is. If we were to, say, suddenly colonise a quadrillion (quadrillion = 1e15 for those living in the inferior UK) different solar systems, each one having a thousand "earths" (habitable living conditions), and each of those "earths" having a population of 10 quadrillion, with every citizen in the universe connected to the Internet, then I'm afraid each person in the universe would have to make due with only several tens of thousands of IP addresses.
Yes, I'm afraid you're right. The sky is falling. Although call me crazy, but before we attack IPv6 for its darth of IP addresses, we might need to figure out how to compensate for the billion year latencies between computers....
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:31 · Score: 0

A big part of why IP4 is "running out of addresses" is the way large blocks of addresses are allocated, effectively "wasting" a huge number of addresses.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by DudemanX · 2003-05-28 10:56 · Score: 1

Sure, that's plenty for our current terrestrial "Internet", but what happens when we want to communitcate with all of our planetary colonies over the "Galactanet" or GAN? We'll probably just end up adopting the protocol of our alien rulers by then though.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Daetrin · 2003-05-28 11:04 · Score: 0, Troll

No, you sound like the ignorant idiot. If the problems we were going to run into were easily foreseable, no one would ever be foolish enough to say "640k is enough for anyone" or "we'll never need IP addresses larger than 128 bits."
The most obvious possibility for running out of IPV6 addreses as has already been mentioned is the development of nanobots. Those could start eating into the number of available addresses pretty seriously.
A lot of your fellow posters seem to be under the misaprehension that we only need to consider earth. I'd really like to think that we'll make it off this planet someday. If we do, we might evntually end up colonizing billions of planets, and have who knows how many various devices scattered about in the space betweem planets. (Pleanty of room there for a _lot_ of nanobots)
And as someone else also mentioned, mismanagement can also "lose" a large number of addresses, although that probably wouldn't be any larger than a factor of 10 or so at most.
1000 years from now the Slashdot of the times could be posting a story that Galaxy 169 is running out of IPV6 addresses because Galaxy 1 was allocated 50% of all the possible addreses.
THINK before you post... THINK before you post... Keep repeating that yourself... IDIOT!

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by anjrober · 2003-05-28 11:14 · Score: 1

You're kidding about that right? I type IP addresses constantly. In a large network, invariably, some machines names aren't resolving correctly. Work for a large company with many, many types of machines (think 3-4 flavors of unix, macs, pcs, mainframes, some vaxes still floating around, boat loads of AS/400s, etc) and you'll be typing IP addresses in your sleep.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by dissy · 2003-05-28 11:42 · Score: 1

As for space, well, light can only go so fast, and TCP is only so giving :)

I think IP will only be used in very short distances, if even off the planet.
Its possible for the moon and orbiting things, but even for mars, thats how many light seconds away? I think we will be needing a new communication protocol that isnt IP to do interplanet or farther.

Imagine each planet getting a full range of ipv6 space. Use IP for inter planet, and something else to route between them.

Either way, ipv6 for a single planet cant possibly run out.
To reach the area where there is only (only, heh) 5000 IPs per person, you would need to drain our planets oceans and have people standing sholder to sholder (no more laying down, wouldnt be enough room on the planet to do so) and even then i dont think there will be enough people to cover the whole surface of the planet to get those numbers.

I dont know how acurate this is, but someone once said if you took a layer of earth 1 inch thick that covered every piece of land on the planet that didnt have water on it (Including the big piece of ice at the top and bottom that not many people live on), there is an IP for every atom within that 1" layer.

To have enough devices to need all of the ipv6 addresses, this planet would be pretty damn packed and full leaving not much room left over for people.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by geekoid · 2003-05-28 11:43 · Score: 1

there are a billion, billion more address then known particles in the galaxy, however, what happens when a company purchases 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,598 of them?
you run out.

We need to find a way to ensure that companies can only buy a certian number a year, per product that has network connectivity, say 1 million.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by yanestra · 2003-05-28 11:43 · Score: 1

IPv6 will not run out of addresses - it will use 128-bit address space.

Ahh, that's like "640KB RAM is much more than you will ever need"...?
Please don't forget: If every type of miniaturized gadget has its own IP, and we'll use huge IP pools for anonymization and localization, there might not be left much.
Especially, if China (with a still growing population) sometime becomes a "developed country" (i.e. first world).
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by frovingslosh · 2003-05-28 12:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

IPv6 will not run out of addresses - it will use 128-bit address space.
By my limited understanding of IPv6, this statement is rather false and misleading. Is the address space 128 bits? Yes, somewhat. But does that give a good account of the number of addresses available, NO. IPv6 has several different types of addresses, and the total number of actual addresses is far smaller that 2^128 would indicate.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by SeattleGameboy · 2003-05-28 12:29 · Score: 1

Obviously, I have under-estimated the black, bottomless pit that is your brain...

Increasing the bit size is not like increasing memory you idiot. When you increase the memory from 640K (then) to 4GB (today), you have a linear increase in capacity of 6250X. When you increase 64bits to 128bits, you don't just get 2X capability you get "4 Billion times 4 Billion times 4 Billion" increase in its capacity!!!

Do you have any sense of how big that number is???

For an argument sakes, in 1000 years, we are STILL using IPV6 (C'MON, give me a break!!!) and we have now conquered every solar system within 1000 light years (unless you believe we can fly faster than light - or are you too dumb to know that you cannot travel faster than light?). Based on the number of stars in the Milky Way, that is about 1 billion star systems.

Even if we colonized EVERY FREAKIN solar system within in 1000 light years, you can still assign 4 BILLION TIMES 4 BILLION TIMES 4 IP ADDRESS per solar system!!!

Can you start to appreciate how dumb your comments have been so far, or is your stupidity beyond the reach of normal reason???
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by badboy_tw2002 · 2003-05-28 13:15 · Score: 1

Read a little bit before you start spouting off:

http://www.pcsupportadvisor.com/nasample/c0655.pdf

Since most of those address spaces are going to be 0, they have schemes for dropping bunches of 0s. And they just didn't "pull it out of their ass". Its more like they sat and figured out an address size (in 32 byte chunks) that will never have to be replaced. Because if an internet with ~10 years of mainstream use is hard to upgrade, wait 100 years from now when every microchip on earth is networked and suddenly we need to upgrade. That's a problem. IPv6 will happen slowly but surely. I'd prefer we take our time and get it right the first time.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Daetrin · 2003-05-28 13:17 · Score: 1

Did you even read my comment? Obviously not given the complete lack of thought on your part.
Each person could have 100 trillion nanobots with a unique IP address in them just by themselves. I suspect the number of nanobots out performing other tasks would be even larger. So if each planet had only 10 billion people, that would be 1x10^24 addresses. I'd guess maybe 1000 times as many nanobots would be scattered across the rest of the planet and within the solar system, perfoming manufacturing tasks, transmiting data, being used for research, controlling the weather, whatever. That's 1x10^27 addresses per planet/solar system.
Say there are a billion planets per solar system as you say. (And are you too dumb to know about research into wormholes and other potential methods of circumventing the speed of light?) so the whole galaxy would use up 1x10^36 addresses.
That would mean that 300 fully developed galaxies would exhaust the number of IP addresses, even if they were perfectly allocated. In reality I expect you'd start seeing shortages at a much smaller number than that.
As for whether or not we're still using IPV6 in 1000 years or 10,000 or however many years is required is really beside the point. You're making the claim that we won't ever run out with that many IP addresses, i'm claiming that running out is indeed possible. If we were to never run out, why would we bother upgrading from IPV6 anyways?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by jericho4.0 · 2003-05-28 13:25 · Score: 1

You;
a) are correct.
b) still sound like an idiot.
It's much easier to hear your reasoning if you don't come off sounding like an arrogant 12 year old.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Achoi77 · 2003-05-28 13:35 · Score: 1

there are a billion, billion more address then known particles in the galaxy, however, what happens when a company purchases 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,598 of them? you run out.
Really?
Let's do the math then.
2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 - 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,598 = 340,282,366,920,937,797,892,581,258,564,824,312,85 8
Doesn't seem to make a big dent
Still not convinced? How about we found out how many companies can buy 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,598 ip addresses for themselves:
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 / 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,598 = 511,263,971,197,990
Ok, I'll have to agree with you, that we will run out of address when 551 TRILLION companies start buying 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,598 IP addresses.
Use this for your calculations
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by NotoriousQ · 2003-05-28 14:04 · Score: 1

The problem that you see is that the current DNS system for IPv6 is non existent. What you are seeing is more of a hack to be interoperable.

Once IPv6 becomes more adopted you will see those improvements made.

Since most of the ip range is reserved for the local network, it will be more like a 64 bit address followed by ::1 (unless a person needs more than one machine)

--
badness 10000
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Talez · 2003-05-28 14:44 · Score: 1

The klaxornifwig galaxy are running out of IPv6 address space!

Apparently they were only allocated 215,723,018,759,102 addresses and almost all of them have dried up!
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:19 · Score: 0

There is a HUGE difference between "640K of RAM" and 2^128 addresses. If you cannot see that, then I have to agree with the original poster that you are a complete idiot who seems to have no clue as to how large 2^128 really is.

By the time this ever comes close to being exhausted, the human race will probably be long dead, not to mention the fact that the technology would have been long replaced by something better than TCP/IP anyways.

Besides, computers are binary. There are always finite limits to everything, whether it's sector addressing or memory addressing. This is no exception to the rule. A limit must be chosen, but this time it is indeed far past anything we will use in IP's lifetime.

Oh, and to think that someone is a "visionary" for just blindly disagreeing with set limits is also foolish. You have to put some common sense behind such statements.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:33 · Score: 0

Using IP for nanobots? Riiight... Either take a few science courses at your local university, or go back to watching Star Trek and forget about commenting here.

For some reason, people keep trying to beat problems with clubs rather than sneak around them. If you actually HAD a few hundred billion nanobots, and you had the choice of using protocol A, which is being used for something else and MAY cause a problem, or using protocol B which you get to define and therefore does not place a limitation on you AND everybody else, what would you do?

This is the problem with people today. They do not see alternative methods to problems, and instead keep pulling out a bigger hammer everytime. If nanobots are going to be an issue on the IP network, then they do not belong on the IP network.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by NotQuiteReal · 2003-05-28 17:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Put your money where your mouth is. I, too say we will NEVER run out of IPV6 addresses, and to prove it I will bet you $US1,000,000.00 straight, up.

All I as is that you send me 10% now to hold the bet. I will pay off 1,100,000.00 if I lose the bet.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by F4Codec · 2003-05-28 20:13 · Score: 1

See Rfc1606. When every body cell has its own IP address, in all parallel universes, we'll run out :-)
Besides its not just the sizes, its being able to route on them that matters. However I agree for now we have plenty of space in IPv6.
Julian.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Avakado · 2003-05-28 21:34 · Score: 1

Even if there were a billion trillion people on Earth, each person would still have 340 thousand trillion addresses.

You will need a very smart allocation scheme to be able to utilize the address space that good. After all, every router cannot know about every single host in the world.

--
The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by chief-dot · 2003-05-28 23:36 · Score: 1

I disagree entirely with most of these posts.

Firstly - it's quite possible to have the 128 bits of addressing become exhausted. When you consider that every organization will be allocated 64 bits of address space MINIMUM and that many may get 80 bits of addressing then you will hopefully realise that although IPV6 has a massive amount of room to move it's not the bottomless pit that people seem to think it is.

Secondly - IPV6 is a lot more than just IPV4 with 128 bits of addressing. IPV6 has support for autoconfiguration just for starters. This means that people will very rarely (in some cases, never) need to deal with an IPV6 address.

Your thoughts?
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by GigsVT · 2003-05-28 23:44 · Score: 1

64 bits would never have to be replaced, even if the population of the earth increased 100 fold and each person had 20000 devices with IPs, we'd still have several powers of 2 to spare. 128 bits is just stupid.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by jpmorgan · 2003-05-28 23:59 · Score: 1

If I have my comparisons correct, that's an ip address for every atom in the universe. Of course, if we want to address protons and electrons, we'll have to use NAT too.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by GigsVT · 2003-05-29 00:22 · Score: 1

The way I understand it, routers and such will still need to be configured manually, as will DNS.

What organization really needs 64 bits of address space? Don't give me that "IP for every chip" stuff, 64 bits is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses. I'd bet that the entire semiconductor industry hasn't produced that many transistors in it's entire history. (Even counting transistors in ICs and processors)

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by gbjbaanb · 2003-05-29 02:05 · Score: 1

I can - the number of grains of sand on all the beaches on the planet.

err. except that I make it 70,892,159,775,195,513 IP addresses per grain. bummer.

(from http://www.mscd.edu/~physics/astro/grainsofsand.ht m) :-o
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Deslack · 2003-05-29 02:16 · Score: 0

The IPv4 was invented more than 20-30 years ago. I have doubts that they had a 32-bit processor operating as servers and routers back then.

--
.sigs are useless; it doesn't protect you from imposters.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by deathmolor · 2003-05-29 02:16 · Score: 1

Oh ya I can see that.

People ending up in emergancy because someone hacked the their brain nanobots. Great...
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 03:14 · Score: 0

You obviously even lack the ability to read a simple paragraph...

If you read my post, it CLEARLY states that within 1000 light years from earth, there are approximately about 1 billion solar systems. That is S-O-L-A-R S-Y-S-T-E-M-S NOT "a billion planets per solar system". There are about several dozen planets known to exist (to us) in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE you idiot. How the heck would we reasonably guess that there are "a billion planets per solar system"???

And you need to step away from that remote control and do something other than watch Star Trek all day. If you've ready any theoretical physics books, you would know that traveling through a worm hole would be similar to traveling through a black hole - it is theoretically impossible for anything with a mass (without being completely destroyed).

For a FREAKIN' argument sakes that such technology existed. However, IF IT DID, a crappy problem like IPV6 would not even EXIST!!! This would ALSO apply to any civilization that can created 100 trillion nanobots, you idiot!

Stop making a fool of yourself go and read some books. Imagine, if you will, in your tiny tiny pea of a brain how big a number 128bit can generate. I know I am asking the impossible, but at least try...
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by mfrank · 2003-05-29 06:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Man, even with a Dyson sphere IPv6 is overkill. You still get over 10^15 (a million billion) IP addresses per square meter.

Now, if you put a Dyson sphere around every sun in the galaxy, then you'll get down to a few thousand IP addresses per square meter. *Then* we need to think about going to IPv8.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Daetrin · 2003-05-29 07:06 · Score: 1

Sorry, i miswrote "Solar System" instead of "Galaxy" the math is still correct.
Stephen Hawking has stated that time travel may be a theoretical possibility, and you think traveling across the galaxy is going to be forever out of our reach?
For a FREAKIN' argument sakes that such technology existed. However, IF IT DID, a crappy problem like IPV6 would not even EXIST!!! This would ALSO apply to any civilization that can created 100 trillion nanobots, you idiot!
Are you regressing in age as we watch? Here is the simple, logical argument. You say IPV6 will have all the IP numbers we'll ever need. If there is a point in the future where more IP addresses are needed than IPV6 can provide, then your statement is false, even if at that point in time IPV6 is not being used.
Burning wood can not provide humans with all the energy we need at the present time. The fact that at the present time we have means of aquiring energy other than burning wood does not negate the statement.
And yes, i know how big a number 2^128 is. Enough to index ever cell of every human if there were 10,000 billion humans per planet in 300 galaxies with 1 billion planets per galaxy. (I don't expect there to be 10,000 billion humans per planet, just 10 billion and the rest taken up by industrial and telecomunication issues, but apparently you aren't capable of understanding more subtle arguments)

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Daetrin · 2003-05-29 07:10 · Score: 1

If we need to develop other protocols to handle specific cases (say, nanobots) then obviously IPV6 wouldn't have more than we could ever need, would it?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 09:46 · Score: 0

665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 IP addresses per square meter = 665,570,793,348,866,943 IP addresses per square milimeter = 665,570,793,348 IP addresses per square micrometer = 665,570 IP addresses per square nanometer
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by Vengeful+weenie · 2003-05-29 18:41 · Score: 1

Even if there were a billion trillion people on Earth . . .
What about the colonies on Mars?
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by chief-dot · 2003-05-29 21:53 · Score: 1

No arguments from me in that regard - 64 bits of addressing if you want autoconf seems quite ridiculous.

I just quietly accept things like that safe in the knowledge that the people that write these standards such as IPV6 know what they're talking about. Just like the 802.11 guys knew what they were talking about when they developed WEP...

Hang on - I know exactly why they made it 64 bits...

You're actually pretty close to the mark saying that in one 64bit subnet you could virtually fit every single device know to man. That's the POINT. Autoconf doesn't just throw you a random IP and hope for the best - it assigns you an IP which is a function of the subnet and your EUI-64 address. (EUI 64 address is a function of your MAC address).

See...it all makes sense.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? by darqchild · 2003-05-30 18:04 · Score: 1

actually... they did

--
What? Me? Worry?

2 solutions by IamTheRealMike · 2003-05-28 08:07 · Score: 0, Interesting

1) Deploy IPv6

2) Actually allocate the addresses in a way that has some semblance of fairness to it.

Of the two, I'm not sure which is easier. Sad really, isn't it?

Re:2 solutions by scorp1us · 2003-05-28 08:10 · Score: 1

Nah, we invented it. It's ours to own. Hopefully this wil be the motivation everyone needs to geton the ipv6 bandwagon. I mean, enough addresses for every atom in the solarsystem, and then some. And there aren't more Asians than atoms.

--
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Re:2 solutions by kmac06 · 2003-05-28 08:11 · Score: 0, Troll

How is the current allocation not fair? The Internet was developed in the US, why shouldn't they allocate to themselves however many they feel they need?

Oh wait this is /., the US is always wrong...I forgot.
Re:2 solutions by rabtech · 2003-05-28 08:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it fair to yank addresses out from under those who are already using them? I don't think so.

If we want to go by the countries that will most utilize IPs, then the USA and Japan probably top the list.

The bottom line is that IPv4 doesn't have enough addresses. We need to transition to IPv6. I suggest the all-powerful, all-loving, wonderful and joyous Chinese government, greatest in all the world bringing happiness and prosperity to all its people, concentrate on transitioning its backbones and systems to IPv6, and just gateway IPv4 to the rest of the world.

--
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Re:2 solutions by Zathrus · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually allocate the addresses in a way that has some semblance of fairness to it.

Ok... so define "fair". Sure, China has 1.1B people. How many of them have a computer? How many of them even have access to one? Not to mention the little niggling detail of the Great Firewall of China, which means that nearly every system is firewalled and NAT'd anyway.

India is a somewhat better scenario really, with nearly as many people but (on average) a much higher technology level. As I recall they have fewer IP addresses than China too.

But if you do it based on number of systems potentially needing an IP then the US will still be high up on the list... probably #1. Certainly not 70% of the IPs, but far more than the population would otherwise indicate.

The real question isn't whether or not to reallocate the existing IP structure (large portions of which have already been reallocated, which is convienently ignored), but whether we should move to IPv6 or more aggressive use of NAT and similar technologies.
Re:2 solutions by override11 · 2003-05-28 08:14 · Score: 1

Yet.....

--
No I didnt spell check this post...
Re:2 solutions by warpSpeed · 2003-05-28 08:16 · Score: 0, Troll

1) Deploy IPv6
2) Actually allocate the addresses in a way that has some semblance of fairness to it.
3) Profit...
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 0

why shouldn't they allocate to themselves however many they feel they need?
you mean "think" not "feel". please stop propagating liberal touchie-feelie-ness. do you "think" the answer to 1+1 is 2, or do you "feel" like it's 2?
Re:2 solutions by -brazil- · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The point is that they're not using them - there's a number of US companies (not ISPs) that have class A networks assigned to them, meaning they have a hundred or more times as many IP adresses as employees.

--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Re:2 solutions by u19925 · 2003-05-28 08:34 · Score: 1

'Ok... so define "fair". Sure,'...

Why not sell IP address blocks also, just like domain names? this will bring all unused addresses back to the market. First assign number of IP addresses to each country based on their population taken some time in the past. Then allow them to auction these addresses whichever way they want. If some country needs more IP addresses, they can just buy from another country.

The problem with IPv6 is that it is totally different from IPv4. The change is not just from 32 bit to 128 addressing. If it were this simple, the migration could have been easier. Doing address reallocation in IPv4 is hard. But if we had designed something which is like IPv4 but with 64 bit or 128 bit addressing and done reallocation, we would have been able to resolve this issue somewhat more easily. I guess, in this area, the 100 year old system of telephony has worked better.
Re:2 solutions by 10Ghz · 2003-05-28 08:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

But if you do it based on number of systems potentially needing an IP then the US will still be high up on the list... probably #1. Certainly not 70% of the IPs, but far more than the population would otherwise indicate.

How many people there are in the USA? Well, I'll make an generous guess and say 300 million. That's about 5% of the global population. Let's be generous and give USA 7 times as many IP-addresses as there are people in the US. That would mean that US would have 5% x 7 = 35% of the available IP-addresses. Seems fair to me. So why do they need 70% of the addresses? It seems that Europe has ALOT less IP-adds than USA does (15%? are the shares of different regions available anywhere?), even though there are more people here and were are equal in technology (in fact, more advanced in mobile tech)

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:2 solutions by platos_beard · 2003-05-28 08:39 · Score: 1

Nah, we invented it. It's ours to own.
Actually of that 70% the US owns, half belong personally to Al Gore.

--
What's a sig?
Re:2 solutions by Lumpy · 2003-05-28 08:40 · Score: 1

oh come on... if you think that every person on this planet deserves to have a ip address directly on the internet then you are either nuts or completely clueless.

ISP's switch to NAT and only have true IP address for servers or computers that NEED a direct ip connection.

Yes it will break 99% of the p2p software.. but then it will just require the programmers to actually get creative.

Cripes I have 1 ip address at home and 10 pc's.. NAT is perfectly acceptable for 90% of the usres on this planet.

What's next? demanding a seperate phone circuit for every person in a country/city/area?

Bah. sillyness in sillyness out.

there is no IP v4 shortage... only a bunch of fools wasting IP space.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:43 · Score: 0

You obviously haven't been to Leicester...
Re:2 solutions by rplacd · 2003-05-28 08:44 · Score: 1

You have to be a really big ISP to get IPv6 addresses, at least in the Asian-Pacific region. Read section 5.1.1 of the APNIC policy on IPv6 allocation.
Know 200 clients who need /48s in the next two years?
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:45 · Score: 0

there's a number of US companies (not ISPs) that have class A networks assigned to them

Didn't they stop using "class A" designations about a decade ago? The new scheme allows specifying how many bits in the subnet, I'm sure someone knows the appropriate document...
Re:2 solutions by devilspgd · 2003-05-28 08:58 · Score: 1

The point is that they're not using them - there's a number of US companies (not ISPs) that have a /8 networks assigned to them, meaning they have a hundred or more times as many IP adresses as employees.

--
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Re:2 solutions by ceejayoz · 2003-05-28 08:58 · Score: 1

What's next? demanding a seperate phone circuit for every person in a country/city/area?

Nope, but we do demand a separate phone number for every person.
Re:2 solutions by mackstann · 2003-05-28 09:00 · Score: 1

What's next? demanding a seperate phone circuit for every person in a country/city/area?

More like one address for every person. I don't think ipv6 entails giving everyone their own t1 circuit or whatever. So that would be like one phone number per person, and these days, many people have more than one phone. So your analogy sucks (as does my explanation after re-reading it, oh well...)
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:01 · Score: 0

Actually using NAT is like having phones that you can only make calls on - not recieve any.

I fully expect practically everyone to have their own phone number, so why not IP adress?
Re:2 solutions by EnVisiCrypt · 2003-05-28 09:02 · Score: 1

Insightful? That was funny in disguise. Bravo, good sir.

--

*everything* is Orwellian to cats.
Re:2 solutions by captaineo · 2003-05-28 09:08 · Score: 1

The default IPV6 address of an ethernet interface incorporates its MAC address. So every NIC in the world automatically has its own IPV6 address. There isn't much point in dictating an allocation; you get an address each time you buy a NIC.
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:09 · Score: 0

The world is run by idiots because idiots like you think the world is run by idiots.

Kill your brain: be a cynic today!
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:22 · Score: 0

If the US has 70% of the IP addresses and Asia has 22%, that only leaves 8% for the entire rest of the world. I'm sure that Europe is at least as wired as the US and probably have the same order of magnitude of internet users, and they can't have any more than about 1/3 of the IP addresses available that China does. So why is China comlaining so much, and Europe isn't? Or maybe this article was just a piece of sensationalist journalism to generate a few page hits.
Re:2 solutions by charon_on_acheron · 2003-05-28 09:22 · Score: 1

I feel 2 is a good answer, but I wouldn't want to make anyone feel offended if they felt it should be 3. That would not be compassionate, and us conservatives are very compassionate people. Now excuse me while I figure out this "Pies are round" punchline.
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:27 · Score: 0

Bye bye anonymity! /. should be 100% against IPv6 as every single machine/device attached to the net will be *marked*. At least if they want to stay true to their status as the internet chicken little compound...
Re:2 solutions by charon_on_acheron · 2003-05-28 09:35 · Score: 1

Really, China could just start assigning IPv6 addresses from a certain "Class A" number (whatever is appropriate for IPv6), and tell the rest of the world to piss off. They can say they need addresses before they can get more computers installed, so they are doing what they have to towards that goal. It's not like we could stop them from using them, and it would be silly to then give that address range to a Western business, knowing that there will be IP address conflicts. Since there are so many addresses available, they could easily find an unassigned block to use.
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:37 · Score: 0

odd, i occasionally call a telephone number and require the answering party to manually forward the phone to the party i'm interested in

not always 1:1
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:41 · Score: 0

Thank you. The phone circuit analogy is easily the least intelligent non-troll analogy I've ever heard here. And considering here means slashdot, that's no small insult.
Re:2 solutions by CowboyBob500 · 2003-05-28 09:53 · Score: 1

The Internet was developed in the US

The Internet as we know it today (hyperlinks etc) was developed in Switzerland at CERN by a Tim Berners-Lee (amongst others) who is British.

If you're gonna get all patriotic, first get your facts straight.

Bob

--
Listen to my latest album here
Re:2 solutions by amorsen · 2003-05-28 10:06 · Score: 1

The inside joke in HP:
Who will HP buy next after Compaq?
Apple
HP has 15.*, Compaq has 16.* (from DEC), Apple has 17.*...
(That will be the end though, 14 is reserved by IANA and 18 is MIT.)

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:2 solutions by CPUGuy · 2003-05-28 10:15 · Score: 1

The internet that we know today started out as a US government project as a way to continue communications in the event of a nuclear strike. The project was code-named DARPA-NET. For that matter, networking in general started in the US.
Re:2 solutions by amorsen · 2003-05-28 10:54 · Score: 1

You mean "Know 200 clients who need IPv6 in the next two years?"
The smallest IPv6 assignment that an ISP is allowed to give to a customer, whether it is a one-person home or a multinational corporation, is a /48. I would not call an ISP with only 200 customers "really big".

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:2 solutions by amorsen · 2003-05-28 11:01 · Score: 1

Current routers need aggregated routes. If you start splitting routes up into /24's, they melt. So selling IP space in small pieces is definitely out. By the way, I do not see what you mean by IPv6 being totally different from IPv4. The majority of the problems I have seen with application support for IPv6 is that applications only allocate 32 bits for an IP address. Any extension of the IPv4 address space would break those applications anyway. Once you fix the applications to allow 128 bits for the address, IPv6 looks very much like IPv4. To the network administrator they are about the same too, except you do not need those pesky DHCP-servers.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:2 solutions by Zuph · 2003-05-28 11:04 · Score: 1

More than 6 billion IP addresses...
Re:2 solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:10 · Score: 0

It is unfair that MIT/Stanford have their own Class A subnet (if they still do).

It is NOT unfair that 70% of IP addresses are in the US.
Re:2 solutions by skogs · 2003-05-28 17:40 · Score: 1

Mobile tech as you say, should be more advanced in certain parts of europe. Think this one thru...the entire continent of europe(even including the insignificant nations) are roughly the size of the american state of Texas combined with mexico. The whole of america is roughly 5 times the size of europe(4 times if ignoring alaska). To bring High tech cell phones and equipment to europe, it would cost say...500Billion dollars/euros....to do it in america, it would take 2-3 Trillion dollars.

--
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Re:2 solutions by RogueProtoKol · 2003-05-28 21:47 · Score: 1

no, that would be the concept of web pages learn some history

Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:08 · Score: 1, Informative

China, Korea and Japan are running out of time.

Governments and academics from the three countries are teaming up, putting aside troubled histories to avert a common disaster.

The issue: Asia's well of available IP (Internet Protocol) addresses is running dry rapidly. Without an IP address--a 32-bit string of numbers--a 3G phone, PC or handheld has no identity and cannot send or receive data.

When that final address is used up in a couple of years, the online world will grind to a halt. And perhaps, so will the economies of the three North Asian nations.

The shrinking pool
Asia's plight is especially dire because the region was assigned fewer addresses under the current IPv4 (version 4) scheme, drawn up over 20 years ago.

Renee Gamble, a program manager with market research firm IDC and specializing in IP and broadband issues, cited a few stark numbers.

With IPv4, China has only 22 million IP addresses for its population of 1.3 billion people. Last year, it had about 17 million Internet subscribers, and the figure will hit 62.5 million in 2007. Japan and Korea will also run out of addresses soon, she said.

What's worse, this doesn't include the coming wave of 3G phones and smart, data-enabled home devices, which will all need an address.

The U.S. and Europe are sitting pretty for now, because these regions grabbed most IP addresses. The Americans, for example, own 70 percent of all addresses, she said.

Authorities in North Asia are counting on a new addressing scheme called IPv6 to save the day, and it may be Asia that will lead the world in adopting it, she said.

An Asian problem
IPv6 uses a 128-bit number as so the range of allowable addresses is virtually limitless, said Gamble.

But beyond just allowing networks in Asia to grow, IPv6 has other benefits, she said.

With IPv4, a lot of address re-use occurs. A device picks up a new unused address from a shared pool each time it logs on. But because of IPv6's vast pool, each mobile phone and handheld can have its own permanent address, opening up new application possibilities. "IPv6 provides far superior performance, scalability, manageability and security than its predecessor," she said.

China and Japan will invest millions to develop IPv6. For example, June last year, both governments pledged US$32 million into network construction and testing, system development, application technology development and standardization, she said.

Elsewhere, the Nikkei Electronics news service has reported that Japanese firm Hitachi will become an Internet service provider (ISP) in China later this year. It will be the first in the country--and probably the world--to use only IPv6 addresses for customers.

It will rely on Hitachi's own IPv6-enabled network equipment, pointing to how the need to upgrade to IPv6 is being seen as an opportunity for Asian equipment makers.

However, Gamble said that non-Asian makers such as Nortel, Cisco, Nokia and others have supported IPv6 in their products for some years.

"Most vendors have worked to ensure their products have interoperability between IPv6 and IPv4 and because migration and deployment of IPv6 networks across the globe will be gradual, gradual as michael easing himself into taco's backside, the two standards will coexist for many years to come."

"Also, solutions have been developed to allow IPv6 tunneling over existing IPv4 infrastructure, for example," she said.

A two-track Internet?
Still, there may come a time when there will be a dual-track Internet, separated by the Pacific Ocean.

"It is likely that a situation will emerge whereby Asia moves much more rapidly towards IPv6 while North America lags," she said. However, she added that around the world, as domain servers, switches and routers--the nuts and bolts of networks--get replaced over time; the Internet will become one flavor again.

But in the meantime, Asia may have to go it alone.

"Any wide scale migration to IPv6 in North America is still some years away," she said.

Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:18 · Score: 0

Not a complete representation of the text by the poster (No, I was not the anonymous poster that posted the article text. I am another AC)
"Most vendors have worked to ensure their products have interoperability between IPv6 and IPv4 and because migration and deployment of IPv6 networks across the globe will be gradual, gradual as michael easing himself into taco's backside, the two standards will coexist for many years to come."
Re:Article Text by kiolbasa · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 3, Funny

"Most vendors have worked to ensure their products have interoperability between IPv6 and IPv4 and because migration and deployment of IPv6 networks across the globe will be gradual, gradual as michael easing himself into taco's backside, the two standards will coexist for many years to come."

So, do you do this to subvert the moderators, or to catch logged-in karma whores who copy-paste AC posts of the article text into their own posts?

--

Beer wants to be free
Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:22 · Score: 0

I read the article before it was slashdotted (yeah, i subscribe). and that sentence was actually there. Looks like the slashdot editors don't read the articles themselves.
Re:Article Text by Hard_Code · 2003-05-28 08:50 · Score: 1

Nobody reads more than 60% of an article anyway, so does it really matter?

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:12 · Score: 0

Um, no it isn't.

Hi Seth!
Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:19 · Score: 0

funny.. in the future people will be trying to get a dynamic IP to avoid blocking, but now people want a static IP...

dns sux
Re:Article Text by Echnin · 2003-05-28 09:36 · Score: 1

Damn! I didn't notice that. He's trying to brainwash us!

--
Lalala
Re:Article Text by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-05-28 10:58 · Score: 1

However, Gamble said that non-Asian makers such as Nortel, Cisco, Nokia and others have supported IPv6 in their products for some years.
Ironically, Nortel owns 47.*.*.* (16 million addresses, and they probably only actually use a few tens of thousand at the very most); so they are part of the IPv4 problem. Something tells me, with all their IPv6 sales, they aren't about to give this up, atleast not without a fight, or alternatively, a lot of cash.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Article Text by Jonner · 2003-05-28 22:58 · Score: 1

Don't forget that 70.77% of statistics are faked.

Corporations are at fault? by sinergy · 2003-05-28 08:08 · Score: 5, Informative

I personally know of many large corporations that have several Class-B networks that they use for non-accessible internal routing. I'm sure their numbers are much higher than just the one's I've come across. Couldn't somebody review who has all of those assigned addresses and help(force) them to migrate to private ranges?

--
...

Re:Corporations are at fault? by agentZ · 2003-05-28 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

And ditto for some class A networks. I know that MIT does a LOT of computer research, but do they really need an entire class A? Did you know that each fraternity at MIT has their own class B? Really! For an example, try looking the hostnames for the routers in some of the frat houses.
$ host 18.[231-238].0.1
Re:Corporations are at fault? by tomhudson · 2003-05-28 08:25 · Score: 4, Informative

... and some of them have class A addresses that they cannot possibly fill. IANA Address assignments
003/8 May 94 General Electric Company
004/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
005/8 Jul 95 IANA - Reserved
006/8 Feb 94 Army Information Systems Center
007/8 Apr 95 IANA - Reserved
008/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
009/8 Aug 92 IBM
010/8 Jun 95 IANA - Private Use See [RFC1918]
011/8 May 93 DoD Intel Information Systems
012/8 Jun 95 AT&T Bell Laboratories
013/8 Sep 91 Xerox Corporation
014/8 Jun 91 IANA - Public Data Network
015/8 Jul 94 Hewlett-Packard Company
016/8 Nov 94 Digital Equipment Corporation
017/8 Jul 92 Apple Computer Inc.
018/8 Jan 94 MIT
019/8 May 95 Ford Motor Company
Re:Corporations are at fault? by swb · 2003-05-28 08:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I know for a fact this is true.

One company that I've worked with uses a routable /16 (same size as a class B) externally and a routable /16 internally and NATs between the two of them.

What's super annoying is that we have some permanent connectivity to them and they give out different IPs depending on the source of the DNS query. We're not fully integrated with them, so it makes for loads of fun trying to do resolution correctly.

I think it's a waste of addresses. Give back the public-facing /16 they use, use the private /16 globally and use some other NAT scheme or other RFC1918 addressing internally where needed.

But even RFC1918 is a problem as everybody thinks that 10.0.0.0/8 is "theirs" and then you do NAT-NAT, which breaks most troubleshooting tools.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by PD · 2003-05-28 08:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

So you're saying that it is incorrect of me to number my home network that uses NAT? I use 10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.2, and so on for my network. I picked it just because 192.168.1.1 was a little harder to type. Also, from the RFC: "If a suitable subnetting scheme can be designed and is supported by the equipment concerned, it is advisable to use the 24-bit block."

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:47 · Score: 0

Well of course corporations are at fault! Corporations are *always* at fault for *everything*! If that weren't the case, we might actually have to engage our brains and try and solve difficult social and economic problems instead of just blaming corporations!
Re:Corporations are at fault? by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-05-28 08:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some of those have been sold/reassigned/leased. I know, your source ought to have a current list. For instance, I recently setup a customer who has an address in the 4.0.0.0 network, and they definately aren't Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., they just had a Class C or smaller in that block.

Interesting to see the first five: IANA, Xerox, Apple, IBM, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

"Which one of these things is not like the other one?"... or "Which one of these really doesn't need 32 Million IP addresses". [unicode music note code here]

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:48 · Score: 0

18.238.0.1 is a dorm, and 18.231.0.1 is a sorority, actually. 18.238.0.1 is the dorm where teddyborg was made.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by rherbert · 2003-05-28 08:52 · Score: 1, Flamebait

005/8 Jul 95 IANA - Reserved
...
007/8 Apr 95 IANA - Reserved
...
010/8 Jun 95 IANA - Private Use See [RFC1918]
...
014/8 Jun 91 IANA - Public Data Network
I Am Not A... what? Don't leave us in suspense!
Re:Corporations are at fault? by sinergy · 2003-05-28 08:52 · Score: 1

We've run into this as well. Many separate networks that are now being joined together are colliding.
This is not a fault of the protocol, however. There are plenty of RFC 1918 IP addresses for the largest of corporations.
Networks need to be managed and thought out before implementation. I think that the IANA, as well as us got caught in the same situation.

--
...
Re:Corporations are at fault? by LinuxHam · 2003-05-28 09:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Think about manufacturing.. how many devices are IP-enabled nowadays.. now go through your list and think about companies that produce no less than millions of parts per year, and therefore have tremendous manufacturing facilities that have ip-enabled sh*t all over the place..

General Electric Company - Massive production lines
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. - They (not Gore) invented the 'Net
Army Information Systems Center - um, the **ARMY**
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. - again
IBM - (my employer) HUGE MANUFACTURER and 300k+ (technical) employees
DoD Intel Information Systems - The Dept. of Defense
AT&T Bell Laboratories - AT&T fer chrissakes, IP *everywhere*
Xerox Corporation - Another big mfgr and computing co.
Hewlett-Packard Company - Even bigger now with Compaq
Digital Equipment Corporation - Also HPaq, ok 32 million IPs is a bit much
Apple Computer Inc. - They'll never need 16m addys :)
MIT - your point.. a bit much
Ford Motor Company - Back to massive manufacturing facilities worldwide

--
Intelligent Life on Earth
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:04 · Score: 0

Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. == BBN == GTE == Genuity == Verizon, no?
Re:Corporations are at fault? by fermion · 2003-05-28 09:04 · Score: 1

Do corporations, like consumers, pay for each static IP they use. I assume they pay quite a bit more for the range of addresses. If they do, that might be problem, as it provide an incentive to the suppliers to waste addresses.
It is the same with the telcos. A business might need only need 5-10 outside lines and 20 or 30 insides lines, but the telco salesperson will sit there for an hour trying to sell the business a block of one hundred number, saying how wonderful it is to have a each employee on their own telephone number. Of course all astute customers know that what really is going on is an attempt to maximize the sales and commissions.
So, I can imagine some salesperson convincing a company that if they don't buy a class A network right now, it won't be available when they need it. And if the company tries to explain the company only needs a few static IPs, the salesman says how will the executives look at the club if they don't even have a Class B?

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Corporations are at fault? by mattsouthworth · 2003-05-28 09:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Who is this 'someone'? And how can they take something that another entity owns? These class A assignments came well before IANA and whoever doled out /24s to whoever could figure out a SWIP.

Class A and B owners shouldn't have to move to 'private' (RFC1918) address space. 1918 space used in a one-to-many NAT is a hack that breaks end-to-end. IPv6 maintains e2e and is preferable. I'm sitting on a huge network numbered out of RFC1918 right now, which is a pain in the balls.

And while I'm soapboxing, although 'security' (broken e2e) is a side-effect of NAT it's not a reason for NAT. One could be just as secure with a properly configured firewall, and (all together now) not break e2e.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by FunkSoulBrother · 2003-05-28 09:12 · Score: 1

034/8 Mar 93 Halliburton Company

Halliburton strikes again!
Re:Corporations are at fault? by spif · 2003-05-28 09:16 · Score: 3, Informative

actually, they're not /16s

--
fnord.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by tomhudson · 2003-05-28 09:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

<qoute> Think about manufacturing.. how many devices are IP-enabled nowadays.. now go through your list and think about companies that produce no less than millions of parts per year, and therefore have tremendous manufacturing facilities that have ip-enabled sh*t all over the place..</quote>
There's no reason why these devices should have externally-visible IP addresses (and a lot of good reasons why they shouldn't). if you think about it. Imagine what would happen if you could hack into the welding robots on Ford's assembly lines, or GE's, or "War Games" the AISC., DoD, etc.
That's the reason for 10.n.n.n, 192.n.n.n, etc. Private networks. :-)
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:23 · Score: 0

I *really* wish you had posted that non-AC so I could have added you to my friends list :)
Re:Corporations are at fault? by b1t+r0t · 2003-05-28 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

BBN, better known as Genuity. It's great that they're actually using their ancient Class A allocation.

--

--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Bingo+Foo · 2003-05-28 09:58 · Score: 1

For a suitably overloaded operator==(), yes.

--
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Luzumsuz+Lazim · 2003-05-28 09:58 · Score: 1

MIT has some weird names for the routers/servers/etc. I'm not claiming for sure, but it is quite possible that, the listed subnets are not really the fraternity nets, at least not all the IPs. Class-C is not a small network that every fraternity can afford! For more weird examples, have a look at the names (hack-names) of 18.7.16.[64-78] addresses.
And, some of the addresses are being used by third parties. Ex: 18.7.20.68 (akamai cache).
And, I can tell for a fact that obtaining IP addresses from MIT by the departments is getting more expensive. For example the Laboratory of Nuclear Science - MIT bought its new subset of (sub class-C) addresses from ES-net (198.125.16n.nnn, ex: ns.lns.mit.edu).
That tells me that MIT, somehow, utilizing its class-A network to a degree that it even can not provide cheaper IP addresses to its own departments/laboratories!
I don't think there is a large waste of IP space here at MIT.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Mr.+McGibby · 2003-05-28 10:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the reason for 10.n.n.n, 192.n.n.n, etc. Private networks

No it's not. It's for people who can't or don't want to get real IPs.

There are a lot of reasons why so-called private devices would want a real IP address. First and foremost is so that they can send out requests to the Internet and the receiver of requests will know where to send the response. Firewall all you want, but two-way communication is still important.

NAT is a hack.

--
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Ewan · 2003-05-28 10:11 · Score: 1

Generally you pay about $10 a year per IP address if you are a new user, you simply cannot get Class A or Class B sized blocks anymore. About $100 a year will get you a 8-10 IP address block.

IBM with 9. and the others with class A's all to themselves do not pay for their class, which means they have very little incentive for returning them.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by bob · 2003-05-28 10:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

At my suggestion, a few years ago my employer tried to give back a class B because we didn't really need it, asking only for a handful of class C numbers in return. Turned out to be harder than you might think, and it never happened. Now, since we never got the class C nets either, parts of the class B are in use and it would be a huge PITA to rip it out, so most of it's pretty much lost address space. So don't put all the blame on the holders of those nets -- a lot of the problem stems from mis-managment of the resource.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by LinuxHam · 2003-05-28 10:21 · Score: 1

Modding myself Redundant -1, but see your first replier. Public registered IPs does not imply publically visible by any means. If you can somehow print to one of IBM's network printers in an office from outside their network, they have a very big problem.

--
Intelligent Life on Earth
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:30 · Score: 0

Here's the simple answer for you: I work for one of those companies, and we phoned IANA to tell them that we were willing to give back 75% of the class B. They told us all or nothing. Fuck 'em. We kept the class B, which is internal to our network only and will never appear on the public Internet. This is for, umm. 500 hosts or so?

And the way I look at it, I'm glad they're doing that. I hope this forces North American providers to consider v6 finally. Group Telecom told us that they have no intention of ever implementing IPv6, and UUNet Canada apparently has it on a test bad and plans to roll it out in 5 years or longer.

They keep saying 'customers aren't demanding it' (This is when I phone them to demand it *g*).

Hopefully this pressure will force the teir 1 ISPs to finally get around to moving.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

They are definitely MIT fraternities. The ones off campus have a T1-equivalent DSL line that's paid for by MIT, complete with its own class-C address space. I don't believe each fraternity has the ability to use all of the addresses (18.2xx.0.xxx were only allowed), but the remainder are earmarked for use by the fraternity. It's inefficient, but MIT owns the whole class-A space and there's no need to get more IP addresses. Any odd allocations of IP addresses is out of politics or logistical convenience, not technical requirements. When the ISP I was working for found out about the number of IP addresses that we had available at our disposal at the fraternity, they nearly shat a brick. They were jealous, seeing that IP addresses from upstream providers were very valuable ...
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:39 · Score: 0

Hell when I worked at ZD ( Interop net) has its own Class A
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Door-opening+Fascist · 2003-05-28 10:41 · Score: 1

Agreed. And not only that, but the big computer corporations often started with class A (16 million addresses) blocks, and acquired more over time. HP, for one, has its own class A, Compaq's class A, Digital's class A, and I believe also has Tandem's class A as well. That's 48 million IP addresses. I bet that a full .001% are actually in use. And all the other old IT companies (IBM, Sun, SGI, etc.) probably are similarly inefficient.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by drdink · 2003-05-28 11:15 · Score: 1

The best MIT hostname has to be 18.244.1.102, which is FUCK-THE-SKULL-OF-JESUS.MIT.EDU. Unfortunately, this host has also been the source of much IRC abuse on SlashNET in the past. It is my theory that MIT has a open naming policy, which seems like a rather bad idea to me.

--
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
Re:Corporations are at fault? by leviramsey · 2003-05-28 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Verizon's also part of that (Verizon having been formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE (which owned Genuity)).
Re:Corporations are at fault? by alonsoac · 2003-05-28 11:45 · Score: 1

I haven't verified your claim about eash fraternity at MIt having a class B but that is just plain wrong. I live in Costa Rica and IP addresses here are simply running out and they are VERY expensive now, which hinders the ability of small businesses to grow, which hurts the economy etc. All this just so some frat boys have public ips to use I have no clue where?

IPV6?, forget it, we need the rest of the world to adopt it and then debate for 2 years and then wait another 2 years for a multinational to install it. Sad.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by joejoejoejoe · 2003-05-28 11:46 · Score: 1

How much you want for that PHAT NIC?

Where you born on the Internet?

Dozer is that you?

I'd easily pay $20.02

-JoeJoeJoeJoe (J4)

p.s. Seriously, how much do you want????

--
Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by bob · 2003-05-28 11:54 · Score: 1

Seriously, how much do you want????

Didn't I already say? :-)
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 12:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Every fraternity has their own class B? That seems odd. If I recall, that's what my entire college runs on (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). And my fraternity doesn't get any of it. We have 30 guys running through a single linksys router hooked up to a cable modem, and we're thankful for that. We also have to walk to class uphill both ways, in the snow.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Jellybob · 2003-05-28 12:16 · Score: 1

Ummm... why would anyone want to their welding robots to accessible over the internet.

Something tells me the techs for those things don't do much tele-commuting. Or at least if they do, it would explain why my car keeps falling apart.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Jellybob · 2003-05-28 12:19 · Score: 1

Unless you happen to be using a DSL line with static IP, in which case you end up paying £10 (not quite as much) per *month* for your IP address.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 19:17 · Score: 0

Sounds like you need to switch to a provider that doesn't charge extra for static IPs.

I'm with Eclipse and pay just over £23/month for my ADSL connection, with 8 static IPs.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Placido · 2003-05-28 20:07 · Score: 1

>>There are a lot of reasons why so-called private devices would want a real IP address. First and foremost is so that they can send out requests to the Internet and the receiver of requests will know where to send the response.

Question: Why would you want a private device making requests on a public network? I don't know about you but if I was setting up a large amount of private equipment all of which are ip enabled then I would definitely have a private network.

--

Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Khazunga · 2003-05-28 20:15 · Score: 1

There's no reason why these devices should have externally-visible IP addresses (and a lot of good reasons why they shouldn't). if you think about it. Imagine what would happen if you could hack into the welding robots on Ford's assembly lines, or GE's, or "War Games" the AISC., DoD, etc.
No, what you meant to say probably was: There's no reason why these devices should be directly connected to the internet, with no firewall. Packet filtering has nothing to do with NAT. You may think of NAT as a subset of general packet filtering. While packet filtering is essential for network security, NAT isn't and it's just a hack to avoid the IP allocation hurdles.

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Re:Corporations are at fault? by meadowsp · 2003-05-28 20:51 · Score: 1

"We have 30 guys running through a single linksys router hooked up to a cable modem, and we're thankful for that. "

Must be all that hazing we've been hearing so much about.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by swb · 2003-05-29 01:56 · Score: 1

No, the situation I'm referring to are the all the mid-to-large businesses that have some el-cheapo ISP that gives them a /28 or something. They stick a mail server, a web server, and a firewall on the /28 and NAT everything else.

"Everything else" typically includes multistate WANs and thousands of network assets. They then also want to interconnect with other networks and assert that "10.0.0.0/8" belongs to *them* -- I shit you not, I have worked with vendors in the business of selling networked ASP services who have tried to tell me that "10.0.0.0/8 is our address block -- you shouldn't be using it."

This is an example of the overuse of NAT -- in these cases there should be MORE use of global addresses, not less, as RFC 1918 addresses are supposed to be for private nets that will not be connected to other networks.

I guess my previous post was trying to create a contrast between wasteful use of global addresses and overuse of private addresses when global addresses would be more flexible.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by sgtrock · 2003-05-29 01:58 · Score: 1

Question: Why would you want a private device making requests on a public network?/blockquote?

Any geek who has had to suffer re-addressing a big corporate network after a merger knows the answer to this one. :) Or do you regard dealing with 100,000 devices and/or ~2500 subnets fun?
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Mr.+McGibby · 2003-05-29 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ummm... why would anyone want to their welding robots to accessible over the internet.

They wouldn't, but they might want that welding robot to be able to communicate with a supplier's server. While you could do this with NAT and other such hacks, why not do it the proper way with a real IP address?

--
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
Re:Corporations are at fault? by tomhudson · 2003-05-29 02:33 · Score: 1

My point was, since there is no need for these devices to be connected to the internet, why not give them one of the addresses from the address space reserved for internal networks.
It would also make setting up firewalls easier, because now you can just ban any connections coming from the outside world that go to an address beginning with 10.* or 192.* that doesn't have the ESTABLISHED, RELATED bits set.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Bert64 · 2003-05-29 03:13 · Score: 1

http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/world-ip.h tml

This might be worth a read, general electric and ford motor company have A-class blocks for a start... so do Apple, DEC and HP...
Now while i can understand MIT, DEC, HP etc.. since they were part of the internet from the start and instrumental in it`s creation... I really wonder why ford needs an A-class that doesnt even have any active hosts.
Theres also a large number of reserved blocks... what are these for? they seem just wasted while theyre marked as reserved...

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Bert64 · 2003-05-29 03:20 · Score: 1

4 is BBNPlanet, theres thousands of dsl/cable customers there...
Same goes for 12, thousands of AT&T cable users there...
DEC used to use 16, but i dont think they make much use of it anymore... atleast clepsydra.dec.com, their ntp server.. which used to have a 16.x address is now in 204.x, HP actually make some use of their ipblock tho.. so do apple:
nserver.apple.com has address 17.254.0.50
DEC and MIT atleast were instrumental in creating the internet however.. it`s not surprising they have an A-class each... but i really wonder why ford has one... Are they going to provide an internet connection in every car or something?

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Corporations are at fault? by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-05-29 03:23 · Score: 1

Ah, quite right, I knew that once. ;) Thanks.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Bert64 · 2003-05-29 03:23 · Score: 1

And manufacturing devices have no place being on publicly routed IP`s, infact every manufacturing company has their own A-class block for their devices, 10/8
Putting manufacturing devices on routed IP`s is a stupid idea, what if someone hacks them and starts changing designs?

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 03:37 · Score: 0

We had the same experience. ARIN wanted us to agree to give back our addresses *before* they would give us new ones. We wanted to keep a smaller block of our older addresses (to make renumbering more graceful), but ARIN said that was against their policy. They also, even after submitting pounds of paperwork, wouldn't agree to give us enough addresses to meet their minimum requirement of a /19. In other words, they wouldn't give us any addresses at all for our 12,000+ machines. Also, that meant we'd have to use addresses from one of our providers. Then, we'd have to change addresses everytime we switched providers. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot ARIN. They want all of our addresses, but they don't want to give enough back in return. That's why the (bad) status quo is continuing. ARIN just doesn't give a damn. All they care about is the tremendous fees they charge. Hell, they didn't even want to return phone calls until we paid $2,500.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Tony-A · 2003-05-29 06:07 · Score: 1

Question: Why would you want a private device making requests on a public network?
About the same reason you'd drive a private automobile on a public roadway.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Khazunga · 2003-05-29 06:16 · Score: 1

My point was, since there is no need for these devices to be connected to the internet, why not give them one of the addresses from the address space reserved for internal networks.
This is a rather limiting view, quite common. The fact that you don't know of any application doesn't mean that there isn't one, or that one isn't bound to appear once you lift the private-network hack provided by NAT.
As a simple example, off the top of my head, difficult to work out with NAT, consider having the quality staff read SNMP MIBs on production-floor robots, for sporadic inquiries on quality parameters. Right now, you'll need to VPN into the private network (difficult for a variety of mobile devices), whereas with real point-to-point communication you could just read in the MIB results -- possibly encrypting the data when it leaves the production-floor network, a work for a good firewall.

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Re:Corporations are at fault? by ichthyos · 2003-05-29 12:08 · Score: 1

This isn't entirely accurate. It's true that MIT has its own Class A (18.*), but take a look at the Network Topology Map (pdf) and you'll see that most buildings are /21's (including most dorms). Most frats and independent living groups are on /23's because they're smaller... but it's definitely true that MIT owns a hell of a lot of IP's.
Re:Corporations are at fault? by Vengeful+weenie · 2003-05-29 18:52 · Score: 1

Great! I think that IPs should be available, and cheaply too. If the transition takes a decade, then who cares? We've had a lot of time to work out the migration path, and IPv6 includes a number of additional benefits [better routing, IPsec, etc.].
Better that we start to think about it now, so we don't fall into the traps when it counts.

whats the ratio? by ender_wiggins · 2003-05-28 08:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

22million ips? How much of ther population have even seen a computer? How many can read? Just cause you have more people doesnt mean you need to have them all have there very own ip address. Then think about the same ratios in the US.

Re:whats the ratio? by phoenix_rizzen · 2003-05-28 08:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ah, but it's not just computers that need IPs. There's all the embedded controllers that need IPs, and the phones, PDAs, pocket PCs, tablets, monitoring equipment, and so on. A single person could require half a dozen or more IPs.

And don't forget the public kiosks, the commercial networks, and so on. Not all of these can be placed on a private network (although most can).

Even with sensible NAT setups, it's very easy to run out of IPs before every person has a computer.
Re:whats the ratio? by Sethus · 2003-05-28 08:21 · Score: 1

My roomate is from China, and we both think thats rather ignorant of you to say, 90% of the people know how to read in China, I mean its just like the US, you can't NOT read and survive easily. He thinks 40%-60% of the people there OWN a comptuer, so I doubt just having seen one is a problem. I think you're seriously underestimating the growing industry of computers and internet over there and the need for IP's.

--
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
Re:whats the ratio? by EdgeShadow · 2003-05-28 08:21 · Score: 2, Informative

With IPv4, China has only 22 million IP addresses for its population of 1.3 billion people. Last year, it had about 17 million Internet subscribers, and the figure will hit 62.5 million in 2007. Japan and Korea will also run out of addresses soon, she said.

Regardless of ratios, the fact is that China, Japan, and Korea are simply running out of addresses. Though costly, implementing IPv6 is a necessity and will take care of the address shortage. Besides, most of the newer OS's (XP, Linux 2.2 or higher, OS/X) already have IPv6 built in.
Re:whats the ratio? by GigsVT · 2003-05-28 08:32 · Score: 0, Troll

Yeah, those dudes with the rickshaws could use GPS/Internet/Bluetooth to locate their next customer.

Or maybe the government could implant RFID into each citizen with an IP address.

--
The illiteracy rate of Asian Americans is 5.3 times that of cacuasians.

33% of Asian Americans students in public high schools drop out or do not graduate on time.

24% of Asian Americans over age 25 do not have a high school degree.

46% of Asian American households do not have anyone over age 14 who can speak English well.

From http://www.cacf.org/mythsfacts/

If they can't even manage to learn to read or speak well in America, how the hell can you claim they need IP addresses. If we did give it to them, they'd probably use it to cheat on multiplayer games, or sell Americans broken computer hardware.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:whats the ratio? by caluml · 2003-05-28 08:39 · Score: 1

I think the original poster was talking about Chinese who live in China, and are educated by the Chinese system, rather than "Asian Americans".

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:whats the ratio? by GigsVT · 2003-05-28 08:41 · Score: 1

I know, I'm just venting. I figure if he can make up statistics that are way off base, I can counter with an equally stupid post. :)

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:whats the ratio? by GlassHeart · 2003-05-28 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

How much of ther population have even seen a computer? How many can read?
The CIA factbook reports 81.5% who can read and write. That's roughly one billion people, about four times the total population of the US. As of 2002, there are some 45.8 million Internet users in China.
In comparison, the US has about 166 million Internet users.
think about the same ratios in the US.
Yeah, let's do that. 22 million IPs for some 46 million Internet users comes to just under 1 IP address every two people. Since the US has 70% of the 4 billion IP addresses, that comes to just over 18 IP addresses per Internet user. The US now holds 36 times more IP addresses per Internet user than China.
What do you think now?
Re:whats the ratio? by jhunsake · 2003-05-28 08:56 · Score: 0, Troll

I think it still doesn't matter. We invented the shit, and we'll do what we want to with it.
Re:whats the ratio? by Anonymous+Cow+herd · 2003-05-28 08:56 · Score: 1

I mean its just like the US, you can't NOT read and survive easily.

I hate to poke holes in your argument, but I see a thriving community of people that can't read or write right here. :-)

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:whats the ratio? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:03 · Score: 0

The swiss want their browser back.
Re:whats the ratio? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:16 · Score: 0

Canadians and Scotts want their phone back.
Re:whats the ratio? by FallLine · 2003-05-28 09:21 · Score: 0, Troll

Canadians and Scotts want their phone back.
The French want back their Nazis....oh wait a minute...
Re:whats the ratio? by UnknowingFool · 2003-05-28 09:23 · Score: 1

Good point. The US has 250 million people, but not all of us have computers. Those of us who do don't neccesarily need a static, registered IP address especially those people still on dial-up.
It's going to be a problem as the computer infrastructure builds in the next several years, but it's not Chicken Little yet.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:whats the ratio? by Sentry21 · 2003-05-28 09:24 · Score: 1

22million ips? How much of ther population have even seen a computer?

Well, if you'd read the article, you'd know:

With IPv4, China has only 22 million IP addresses for its population of 1.3 billion people. Last year, it had about 17 million Internet subscribers, and the figure will hit 62.5 million in 2007. Japan and Korea will also run out of addresses soon, she said.

So at least 17 million people have not only seen a computer, but in fact own one and use the internet. I'd wager that many millions beyond that use internet cafes and the like.

Throw away your stupid preconceptions about what the rest of the world is like. Human rights violations or not, China isn't a third-world despotic slum, it's a real nation with a thriving economy. Why else would Bush be pursuing trade relations with communists if there weren't money in it for him?

--Dan
Re:whats the ratio? by jhunsake · 2003-05-28 09:30 · Score: 0, Offtopic

My browser written at NCSA? Excuse me for not saying "invented and implemented".
Re:whats the ratio? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:50 · Score: 0

Actually, China is third world, it is despotic, and there's a lot of slums. Other than that, great point.
Re:whats the ratio? by operagost · 2003-05-28 09:52 · Score: 0

Maybe because he's a Christian and cares about people? An unpopular notion, I know. I don't see how improving relations will fill his pockets in any case- his presidential salary remains the same whether he "goes to China" or an an intern "goes down on the Oval Office".

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:whats the ratio? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:45 · Score: 0

The British want their packet switches back.
Re:whats the ratio? by HuguesT · 2003-05-28 13:25 · Score: 1

Be careful with your assumptions, according to UNESCO China's literary rate is 85.2% ; and that means for a farmer being able to read 1,500 different Chinese characters and 2,000 for an urban office worker. From memory this is enough to read the newspaper.

I have the memory of this old Chinese guy in a train carriage that could not believe we were students because we couldn't read as many characters as he could.

For a country so poor with so many people, China is quite literate.
Re:whats the ratio? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 13:53 · Score: 0

Fuck the idiot that moderated this "troll", he's dead-on.
Re:whats the ratio? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:47 · Score: 0

No wonder americans get spit on and curb stomped when they visit other countries...
Re:whats the ratio? by cheekyboy · 2003-05-28 21:56 · Score: 1

Thats about the same ratio as americans use petrol compared to chineese!!!

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Re:whats the ratio? by kinzillah · 2003-05-29 17:39 · Score: 1

Well, they did plant trees so they could march in the shade...

--
Douglas P. Price

32 bits ought to be enough by D0wnsp0ut · 2003-05-28 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Perhaps IPv6 will solve the problem.

Perhaps this could signal a limit on the amount of spam coming from China?

--
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"

There wasted anyway by sw149 · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 1

You just windup banning them from your mail server, because you don?t need any herbal remedies.

IPv6? by A+Guy+From+Ottawa · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

The US owns 70 percent of current IP addresses. Perhaps IPv6 will solve the problem.

Or perhaps the US could solve the problem by not being so damn greedy?

IP Everywhere... not just the US!

--

using System.Awesome;

Is this... by SharpFang · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

Is this a part of the economical battle between Asia and US? Give them less IPs so they can't compete on the market on equal conditions? Usually I'm against theories of conspiracy but in this case I'm willing to make an exception...

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Re:Is this... by zapp · 2003-05-28 08:17 · Score: 1

Or it could be that 20 years ago no one forsaw the Internet coming to be as it is, and at the time I doubt China had even 1% of the number of computers we had then.

--
no comment
Re:Is this... by HiThere · 2003-05-28 08:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

No. It's that when they first started handing out TCP addresses it didn't ever seem possible that everyone would want, not just one, but several. So they handed them out in big blocks to make administration easier.

The people who were in at the start all ended up with huge domains that they didn't expect to fill, but then they didn't expect that the address range would "ever" fill up. So why be picky.

Countries weren't really thought of during the first round of allocations. Or even companies. Or most government departments. Except for a few who were a part of the process. The second round, all those were assigned "fair" chunks. But they didn't think of ISPs, or such. That was the third round, which added in ISPs and a few involved techie users (who now wanted an address at home that didn't depend on where they worked).

I don't know which round of assignments we are now. Must be around the sixth or seventh. (A round comes to an end when people figure out that they are running out of addresses, so they revamp the rules of how they are allocated.) Somewhere in there DHCP and bootp started being used so that people didn't get "permanent" addresses anymore.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:29 · Score: 0

In this case, it's stupidity and ancient history, not malice.

When IP first came out, early 80s, everybody thought 32 bits would never be exhausted. Besides, doing comparisons on quantities larger than 32 bits was just too expensive for the hardware of the day to do, or so people thought at the time.

Anyway, since 32 bits was such a large number of addresses, people asked for, and were granted, huge numbers of IP addresses. At the time, most users of the Internet were American, followed by Europe, so American and European sites wound up with most of the addresses. Asia came to the Internet game later and most of the addresses were already taken.

Turns out with the growth of the internet and the convergence of the phone and data systems, 32 bits just isn't enough.

The solution is IPv6 and being forced to move to IPv6 is probably a long term competitive advantage to those countries that move early. It enables 3G telephony, networked everything, and gets rid of NAT. It's short term pain, but sooner or later, everybody will have to feel that pain.

As an American networking engineer, I'm kind of annoyed that we're stuck on IPv4. My home network has to go through NAT to my ISP and this is annoying when multiple machines need to hit the net at the same time.
Re:Is this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:44 · Score: 0

Off topic, but I think you mean "fewer", not "less".
Re:Is this... by charon_on_acheron · 2003-05-28 09:58 · Score: 1

I'd say at the time it was more that the US military didn't feel like giving the Communists an IP address on the DARPA built conglomeration of networks that were in use in the US. In another round of paranoia, they didn't give the Communists the access codes to the nuclear missle sites, or the spare set of keys for NORAD.
Re:Is this... by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:08 · Score: 1

At the time the addressing plans were made, the model of computing going on was a central mainframe connected to by a bunch of terminals. And even if everyone in a company did have computer access, it was with a serial terminal. So the vision was that a company would need N+R addresses for N mainframes and R routers, or maybe 2*(N+R) for redundancy if they were really leet.

Deploy IP to the home? Only a handful of people even had a computer at home back then.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

time to give split up some class A's ? by i.r.id10t · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps it is time to split up some class A networks so that more could be released for other users... for example, I'm sure that even MIT isn't using all 16.something million addresses their 18.foo class A allows for...

That, or one heck of a NAT is needed.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by Eric+Smith · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 1

Perhaps it is time to split up some class A networks
IINM, some of them are already being split up.
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

I know a guy at MIT, he's personally using 3 million addresses, just by himself.
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by Tim+Macinta · 2003-05-28 08:34 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm sure that even MIT isn't using all 16.something million addresses their 18.foo class A allows for.
How would anybody know when their laundry is done then? And what exactly are they supposed to do when using the bathroom? Why don't we all just go back to using slide rules while we're at it?

--
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:37 · Score: 2, Funny

And what exactly are they supposed to do when using the bathroom?
That brings new meaning to the term "IP" address.
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by Anonymous+Custard · 2003-05-28 08:45 · Score: 1

I'm sure that even MIT isn't using all 16.something million addresses their 18.foo class A allows for.
How would anybody know when their laundry is done then? And what exactly are they supposed to do when using the bathroom? Why don't we all just go back to using slide rules while we're at it?

Or back even further in time, when we didn't even have slide rules to help us wash our clothes and use the bathroom!

--
$8.95/mo web hosting
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by wirelessbuzzers · 2003-05-28 09:13 · Score: 1

Yeah. Or find out which bathroom to use?

--
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by charon_on_acheron · 2003-05-28 09:52 · Score: 1

How did you know how many squares of toilet paper to use?

Thinking of which, what is the square of toilet paper?
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:35 · Score: 0

How did you know how many squares of toilet paper to use?
I just ass-timate it.
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by smeenz · 2003-05-28 11:21 · Score: 1

Bonfire K has been vacant for 12201 days <snip to get round the lameness filter>
Fort Awesome K has been vacant for 12201 days
Fort Awesome Minor has been vacant for 12201 days
Fort Awesome Major has been vacant for 12201 days Uh.. they've been vacant for ~ 33 years ? I knew I shouldn't have been lining up waiting for the other toilets to free up!
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 13:04 · Score: 0

MIT needs every IP address they have!
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? by wirelessbuzzers · 2003-05-29 07:15 · Score: 1

Hm. I assume that means their servers are down. I haven't been to that site in months, and then it was working properly (I went to get the floorplan of Random Hall).

I'm a Harvard student anyway.

--
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.

Non-routable addresses by Mistah+Blue · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder why they don't use the non-routable address spaces and NAT.

Let's also remember (since I detected some trolling in the article) that Asia was a backwater for the Internet 20 years ago when address blocks started to be doled out, so naturally the U.S. and to a lesser extent Europe got the bulk of the blocks.

Re:Non-routable addresses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:33 · Score: 0

Yoo, sil, ale a lacist!

China OWNZ by waterlogged · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 0, Troll

Thats ok b/c they probably CONTROL about half of the servers in america anyhow.

--
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.

hah, geeks. We are great. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 0

haha. this must be the top of geek news. running out if ip-addresses, what about food in the world? if someone mention lord of the rings, starwars or a random BBS now, i will have to say, what's under the slashdot banner on this webpage is NOT true ;-)

They could always NAT by krisp · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Let the other billion or so people NAT the remaining ip addresses! 10.x.x.x adds another 16M, and they can 192.168.x.x behind those :)

Re:They could always NAT by wronskyMan · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unless the MPAA (or its Asian equivalent) bribes all the governments to ban NAT boxen (so they can be hotbeds of technological innovation, like the People's Republic of Illinois :-) )

--
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
Re:They could always NAT by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 22:42 · Score: 0

Good call indeed.

AC
www.utmostmusic.com

This only means by earthforce_1 · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

That they will be the first on the block to adopt IPV6 of course. Being late to the party usually means you get the chance to base your infrastucture on superior technology. Both the first celluar service and the first HD television was analog based, and the early adopters wound up with inferior technology.

--
My rights don't need management.

Re:This only means by Loosewire · 2003-05-28 08:29 · Score: 1

along with american NTSC and Uk DAB (Digital Audio broadcast)

--
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
Re:This only means by km790816 · 2003-05-28 09:01 · Score: 1

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. :-)

--
A speech...
Re:This only means by Oloryn · 2003-05-28 09:27 · Score: 1

That they will be the first on the block to adopt IPV6 of course.

Soon followed by the implementation of IPV6-based DNS blocking lists, of course.
Re:This only means by Andrewkov · 2003-05-28 12:50 · Score: 1

Hey, you stole my sig...
Re:This only means by Tingler · 2003-05-28 15:55 · Score: 1

Uh, no. YOU stole my sig.
Re:This only means by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 20:32 · Score: 0

But they're different standards. There's only one flavour of IPv6. Clown.

good by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:09 · Score: 0

The fewer IP's, the fewer open relay's.

Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:11 · Score: 0

What belongs to the relay in that sentence?

Of course IPv6 will solve the problem by Drakon · 2003-05-28 08:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

... I mean 'maybe'?
It's designed to solve exactly this problem.
it was anticipated and designed. now it needs to be implemented... and in that I wish them luck

--
Buttsex.

Re:Of course IPv6 will solve the problem by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:13 · Score: 1

But IPv6 wasn't designed to solve the other problem, which is to be able to scale the routing up as large as the address space it brings.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

SCO SAYS... by crazyphilman · 2003-05-28 08:10 · Score: 2, Funny

All your IP are belong to us!!!

--
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!

Thanks for the insight by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:11 · Score: 0

Couldn't the editors have found a submission that gave a bit more detail and more insight than, "Hey, maybe they could use this new fangled IPv6!"? Or at least added some always-insightful editorial comment?

Asia is one of the primary adopters of IPv6 by illumin8 · 2003-05-28 08:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

I work for one of the largest Unix vendors out there (hint, we used to put the . in .bomb).

Anyway, I can tell you that in one of my many Unix classes when we were learning how to configure IPv6 the instructor mentioned that the reason why IPv6 had been added by default to our new versions of Unix was that we were getting a tremendous amount of pressure from our customers overseas, primarily in Asian markets, who were unable to get IPv4 address blocks from their ISPs, and were therefore deploying IPv6 exclusively.

I believe currently a lot of Asia is running IPv6 with IPv4 gateways at main NAPs.

-obdisclaimer, the opinions expressed are not those of my employer.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

Re:Asia is one of the primary adopters of IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:31 · Score: 0

I work for one of the largest Unix vendors out there

You mean SCO?
Re:Asia is one of the primary adopters of IPv6 by imadork · 2003-05-28 08:35 · Score: 1

"we used to put the . in .bomb"...
Hmm... You worked for VA Linux? :D
Re:Asia is one of the primary adopters of IPv6 by illumin8 · 2003-05-28 09:42 · Score: 1

Hehehe... you made me laugh...

Thanks.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Re:Asia is one of the primary adopters of IPv6 by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:16 · Score: 1

You had to have a class to learn how to configure IPv6? I take it your job there wasn't very technical.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

What about NAT? by Martin+Marvinski · 2003-05-28 08:12 · Score: 1

Most IP address are on internal networks. Most companies would need 3-4 world readable IP address max. I mean Redhat doesn't have 100 IP address that a customer can visit, they have a few, but on the internal network I DO bet they have a NAT IP address.

I know that's what I do, and all the business owners I know do. I think the NAT methodology is the best because it will prevent the expence of converting, plus everyone can use whatever IP address they want internally in their company.

Asia by caluml · 2003-05-28 08:12 · Score: 3, Funny

But I thought the Internet was "America Online"?

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

Subnetting by Vollernurd · 2003-05-28 08:12 · Score: 0

In theory you can never run out of IP addresses, as subnetting and further subnetting still will help alleviate the problem. In theory...

Of course, I do not mean to say that this will solve their problem, but I'm sure municpalities could implement something like that.

--
Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.

Re:Subnetting by Fastolfe · 2003-05-28 08:30 · Score: 1

How will subdividing a finite address space into subnets give you infinite addresses?
Re:Subnetting by Eric+Smith · 2003-05-28 08:32 · Score: 1

In theory you can never run out of IP addresses, as subnetting and further subnetting still will help alleviate the problem.
Huh? Even if you start from a /8 address (the largest IPv4 blocks ever assigned), you can only subnet a maximum of eight levels deep. Subnetting does not create more usable addresses; it actually uses up some addresses as overhead.
Maybe you were thinking of NAT?

Running out of addresses. Right!!!! by doorman · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 0, Troll

There have been stories about how some part or the entire Internet is running out of IP address space since at least 1993. And using China as an example is silly. Most if not all the country is behind a huge "firewall" capable of running NAT services. They could run V6 internally, gateway it, and we would never know the difference.

Once again ZD reports a nothing issue as news.

--
-G "We love to buy books, because we are buying the belief we have time to read them" - Warren Zevon

Re:Running out of addresses. Right!!!! by amorsen · 2003-05-28 10:43 · Score: 1

Show me a firewall capable of keeping track of 22 million NAT entries. Or a few hundred million, as would be necessary if they wanted to make a decent shot at Internet-wiring China.
I can assure you that The Great Firewall of China is stateless. And stateless firewalls can by definition not do DNAT. By the way, RFC1918 only defines 17891328 private IP addresses.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

IPv6 adoption by Vector7 · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is it just me, or does no one really seem to care about adopting IPv6? The free software community has done a pretty admirable job implementing IPv6 and modifying things to work with it. If the world switched tomorrow, linux users would probably be the first ones up and running. Meanwhile, people like Microsoft sit on their asses until all the IP addresses run out and a real crisis develops.

So, maybe it will be the Asian countries that finally push IPv6 toward being adopted. OTOH, in countries like China, maybe the government would be happier if 1+ billion people were forced behind NAT and a handful of filtering proxies due to lack of free addresses. =p

Re:IPv6 adoption by caluml · 2003-05-28 08:28 · Score: 3, Informative

I agree with you. I work pretty much purely over IPv6 now. I can administer our entire network with IPv6.
I keep banging the IPv6 drum, but people are naturally lazy, and don't want to change unless they have to. It explains the Microsoft/Linux thing too - people can't be bothered to try it, as MS works, to a fashion.
Unfortunately, this lack of IPv6 adoption is due to Microsoft. As 90% of the online-population can't use it, the people running the services can't be bothered to support it. And while there aren't any decent services on IPv6, the impetus to upgrade it is low.
Windows XP users: ipv6 install
RedHat: http://gk.umtstrial.co.uk/~calum/ipv6-intro/
I think it can be all summed up by asking: Why don't you make all the sites you administer IPv6 only? Because then most of your audience wouldn't be able to see it.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:IPv6 adoption by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:29 · Score: 0

" If the world switched tomorrow, linux users would probably be the first ones up and running."

Yep. As well as just about every other system-formerly-known-as-UNIX. Even macs (running jaguar anyway) have IPV6 installed and running by default. Does windows?
Re:IPv6 adoption by garcia · 2003-05-28 08:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

of course not. Home owners want to use their routers and router manus have no desire to support IPv6 (as it would be nearly pointless to have NAT routers).

ISPs really don't want to support IPv6 because then they can't charge for additional IPs or blocks of IPs. They also can't force you not to have your own reverse DNS (as ALL the ISPs I have ever used have denied me).

I am currently using Comcast cable. I have an IPv6 address space through he.net. I have my own reverse DNS and I can actually show off my leet vanity hosts on IRC.

Win9x doesn't support IPv6 except through a PAYFOR version of Winsock (what home user is going to do that and when is MS going to add support, yeah, never.)

So if Win9x isn't supported, ISPs don't want it supported, home networking devices aren't going to support it (most home routers just drop the packets, I had to go back to using Linux as my NAT in order to enable IPv6), how is it going to get adopted?
Re:IPv6 adoption by UnknowingFool · 2003-05-28 09:36 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, people like Microsoft sit on their asses until all the IP addresses run out and a real crisis develops.
Of course they will wait till the last minute. How else do you think they will force users to upgrade to Windows 2006 Xtra Pro?
Remember what John Kennedy said: "The Chinese word for crisis consists of two characters. The first represents danger. The second represents opportunity."
Microsoft only seems stupid, but mostly they're evil.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:IPv6 adoption by rplacd · 2003-05-28 09:50 · Score: 3, Informative

If the world switched tomorrow, linux users would probably be the first ones up and running.
Wrong. Linux is nowhere near as IPv6-friendly as the *BSDs. To enable IPv6 in FreeBSD, for example, put 'ipv6_enable="YES"' in /etc/rc.conf and reboot. It'll autoconfig based on router advertisements, etc. You also have the option of enabling it at install time, so you can install over IPv6.
Each FreeBSD CD comes with a bunch prebuilt IPv6-ready apps, like apache, wget, etc -- apps that don't have native IPv6 support. Linux distributions are way behind when it comes to IPv6 adoption.
AEven Microsoft is on the bandwagon here. XP shipped with a "dev release" of their IPv6 code, and service pack 1 upgraded that to a production-ready release. To enable it, type "ipv6 install" at a command prompt, and you're set (no need to reboot!). The new 2003 server release comes with production quality IPv6 code as well.
Re:IPv6 adoption by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:19 · Score: 1

I just booted up my Win98 hard drive (after spending 15 minutes looking for it). I tried to configure it for IPv6. It doesn't seem to have any support for IPv6. So I guess you're right. But Linux users will have to race the BSD users to get online with IPv6. I'm just waiting for ARIN to send me my address allocation.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:IPv6 adoption by CPUGuy · 2003-05-28 10:25 · Score: 1

I hate to burst your anti-MS bubble, but Microsoft has been working on IPv6 but Microsoft has been working on IPv6 since 1996. Hardly, as you put it, "sitting on their asses".
Re:IPv6 adoption by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-05-28 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unfortunately, this lack of IPv6 adoption is due to Microsoft.

Actually, it's more due to the monumentally stupid design decision of not making IPv4 addresses a strict subset of IPv6 addresses, with the result that you have to have tunnels etc to communicate between an IPv6 host or client and an IPv4 host or client.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:IPv6 adoption by Jordy · 2003-05-28 11:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Let's take Redhat 9; to enable IPv6 you have to go into /etc/sysconfig/network and stick the line 'NETWORKING_IPV6="yes"' in, then restart networking with 'service network restart.'

This same config file also will set auto tunneling 6to4, forwarding, router setup, etc. It is about as easy as you can get.

The Redhat CDs have IPv6 enabled applications and many patched apps as well. It even installs ping6, traceroute6, etc. by default for goodness sakes.

There are some pieces of IPv6 Linux is missing, but don't make it seem like there isn't any support. Linux currently is missing 6over4 (different from 6to4), proper TOS bit handling, IPsec ESP transport and AH tunneling modes (AH transport works), full mobility support (supposedly almost there) and a couple other minor things.

--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Re:IPv6 adoption by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-05-28 11:07 · Score: 1

Wrong. Linux is nowhere near as IPv6-friendly as the *BSDs. To enable IPv6 in FreeBSD, for example, put 'ipv6_enable="YES"' in /etc/rc.conf

Each FreeBSD CD comes with a bunch prebuilt IPv6-ready apps, like apache, wget, etc -- apps that don't have native IPv6 support.

Wrong yourself. On RedHat 9 for example, to enable IPv6 all you do is type "modprobe ipv6' as root. Rebooting is NOT required.

Most Linux distros contain a LOT of IPv6 support. RedHat comes with IPv6 enabled through a kernel module, and a large number of packages that include IPv6 support out of the box. Examples include Apache, ping6, iproute6, traceroute6, and so on.

The following page describe Linux IPv6 support in a variety of distros.
Re:IPv6 adoption by Mwongozi · 2003-05-28 11:09 · Score: 1

Windows XP supports IPv6 natively. Older versions support it with an add-on.
Re:IPv6 adoption by rplacd · 2003-05-28 11:45 · Score: 1

[...], then restart networking with 'service network restart.'
I should make this clear -- FreeBSD doesn't require a reboot. A similar dance as above with /etc/rc.network6 (on FreeBSD 4.x) will do all the interface configuration.
It even installs ping6, traceroute6, etc. by default for goodness sakes.
I don't use RedHat, but that is useful to know. Thanks.
Re:IPv6 adoption by rplacd · 2003-05-28 11:47 · Score: 1

On RedHat 9 for example, to enable IPv6 all you do is type "modprobe ipv6' as root.
That loads the kernel code, that doesn't autoconfig the interfaces. And, fwiw, I don't get that module out of the box with Debian Woody.
Can I do a net install over IPv6? (I don't use RedHat).
Rebooting is NOT required.
It isn't required for FreeBSD, either.
Re:IPv6 adoption by geekoid · 2003-05-28 12:26 · Score: 1

IPv6 is being pushed by MS. Naturally, it will require an upgrade for the consumer, which means more money for MS.

ISPs will have to allocate IPv6 sooner or later, and if the major ISPs want a piece of the China market(and they do), they will have to support IPv6 sooner.

This is a change that will have to happen, and any ISP that isn't at least working on a migration plan right now, will fail.

OTOH, it's a great opportunity to write an open source program for the Win98 crowd.
For no other reason then to delay there forced migration.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:IPv6 adoption by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-05-28 12:38 · Score: 1

That loads the kernel code, that doesn't autoconfig the interfaces.

I was able to get the IPv6 address off of ifconfig for my interfaces and ping6 them after running modprobe ipv6. They sure looks autoconfigured to me.

And, fwiw, I don't get that module out of the box with Debian Woody.

That's surprising. The link that I provided lists this module as being part of Debian Woody. Are you sure?

Can I do a net install over IPv6? (I don't use RedHat).

I don't see why not. You can always run expert mode and add whatever modules you want during installation.

It isn't required for FreeBSD, either.

Didn't you list 'reboot' as one of the requirements? That did seem a bit odd to me. I've never heard that FreeBSD required rebooting for configuration changes a la Windows.
Re:IPv6 adoption by jaywee · 2003-05-28 13:55 · Score: 1

I wouldn't actually blame Microsoft for it. They are trying quite hard lately, and it's going to be standard in their new OS. Heck, even their new filesharing tool (3degrees) _IS_ IPv6 ONLY.

I think you should rather blame some other company - Cisco. Had they delivered production quality IPv6 IOS much earlier, I believe ipv6 deployment would be somewhere else. They finally managed to deliver somewhat useable IOS image early this year. Yes, clients are important, but without reliable blackbone, they're useless.
Re:IPv6 adoption by Chester+K · 2003-05-28 14:35 · Score: 1

So if Win9x isn't supported, ISPs don't want it supported, home networking devices aren't going to support it (most home routers just drop the packets, I had to go back to using Linux as my NAT in order to enable IPv6), how is it going to get adopted?

IPv6 adoption on a wide scale is several years out. Win9x is obsolete already. Adding IPv6 to Win9x would be like adding shoes on a dead horse.

WinXP and up come with IPv6 out of the box. Win2K can install it.

--

NO CARRIER
Re:IPv6 adoption by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:32 · Score: 0

You guys are using such primitive OSes. All I have to do is *think* about IPv6 and my system reconfigures itself to use it. Then it notices that the box on the other end of the DSL link only speaks IPv4, so it *automatically* shuts down the IPv6 module to reduce overhead.
Re:IPv6 adoption by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 19:48 · Score: 0

> And, fwiw, I don't get that module out of the box with Debian
> Woody.

The kernel that is present after installation is a cut down version that doesn't have IPv6 support.

If you do an "apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.18-ARCH" then it'll install a kernel that does have the module.
Re:IPv6 adoption by rplacd · 2003-05-28 22:28 · Score: 1

The link that I provided lists this module as being part of Debian Woody. Are you sure?
I have two Woody machines. I'm quite sure.
Didn't you list 'reboot' as one of the requirements?
No. You can set up everything without a reboot; it just simplifies the task.
Re:IPv6 adoption by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 02:00 · Score: 0

what does this have to do w/anything? MOST PEOPLE STILL RUN WIN9x!

Please stop being a fucking retard.

china only needs one by ashultz · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 3, Funny

China wants to filter the entire internet anyway, so they might as well only use one and point it at the Great Firewall of China.

I'm envisioning a billion little linksys router boxes glued together like bricks.

How feasible is it to go to IPv6? by Mothra+the+III · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 1

It is probably going to be implemented down the road, but how many companies are actually ready to use it?

--
Worst. Sig. Ever.

Re:How feasible is it to go to IPv6? by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:21 · Score: 1

Apparently not the ones that are hogging all the class A ... oops ... I mean /8 ... address space. OTOH, you can't reach almost all the machines with those addresses, anyway.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

We needed 'em more by BadDoggie · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 1

Who was connected at the time IPs were handed out?
The Chinese?
How were Chinese relations at the time?
Doesn't everything in China still go through central firewalls?
Can't they keep expanding NAT at more local levels?

Mainly the U.S. - - No. - - Less than stellar. - - Yes. - - Yes.

To put things inter perspective.. by BillYak · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

MIT has its own Class A subnet, which is 16 million (!) IPs. (Compared to 22mil of all of China.)

As does Microsoft, Cisco, and Apple. And I'm sure a lot of other big names.

Do all of those organizations use all of their IPs? Of course not. Relatively, probably more along the lines of "very few" or "negligable."

Sure it is an incentive for IPv6 implementation, but that is not the point. America is wasting a whole lot of IPs, and other parts of the world are running out.

Re:To put things inter perspective.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 0

Most (if not all) of those companies have relinquished some of their IP space.
Re:To put things inter perspective.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:33 · Score: 0

Sour Grapes
Re:To put things inter perspective.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:53 · Score: 0

America wasting stuff? Noooooo, that can't be right...
Re:To put things inter perspective.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:03 · Score: 0

There are various commercial organizations which have Class A addresses, and yet are completely firewalled (no connection to the outside world 'cept thru a proxy). It makes no sense for them to hog Class As, when they could just use the non-routing Class As. One example that a friend mentioned was the USPS, with its 56. network.
Re:To put things inter perspective.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:08 · Score: 0

Very interesting choice of words: America is wasting a whole lot of IPs.
Anyone else see the irony in the implication that something real is being wasted? It's an address. It's something that is virtual. If there were actual machines on those billions of IP addresses, then maybe there would be some waste going on, but there's nothing there!
Kind of like accusing America of wasting "space" by not building housing at 30,000 feet. It's space that is unused, but I would hardly call it wasted.
Re:To put things inter perspective.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 13:04 · Score: 0

we created the thing called the internet. does that mean we have to give them all the address they require. NOPE, screw them. we created it, we can enjoy doing what americans do best, be wastefull, and have fun! ipv6 will solve this. its about time for a forced ip upgrade. LONG OVERDUE i say.....
Re:To put things inter perspective.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 16:11 · Score: 0

It's depletion of a finite resource, in the sense that the depletion is the amount available for everyone else.

What do you think america would do if some other country horded 90% of the world's oil supplies and didn't technically "waste" them? Probably declare war, as usual.

Oh Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:13 · Score: 0

IPV6 will allow us how many more spammers from Asia? As far as the US having too many addresses, you can have my IP address when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Nothing to see here by El · 2003-05-28 08:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Or perhaps NAT or IPMasq will solve the problem, as it has everywhere else...

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Soemthing they've been saying for some time... by Mike+Schiraldi · 2003-05-28 08:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Yes, IPv6 is the future.

And it always will be.

--

--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again

No... by weston · 2003-05-28 08:15 · Score: 2, Funny

If IPv6 is actually adopted before the heat-death of the universe, we'll probably be running out of IP addresses for Mars.

--
Tweet, tweet.

thanks, but no by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:15 · Score: 0

We already have our hands full trying to censor all the IP address we have.

General Tso

The problem is the US government by alen · 2003-05-28 08:15 · Score: 0, Troll

They run their internal networks on public IP's and waste a lot of them since they aren't in use. If Uncle Sam switched to NAT for internal networks then a lot of these problems would go away.

Re:The problem is the US government by Loosewire · 2003-05-28 08:24 · Score: 1

that just screams "hackability" ;-)

--
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination

Maybe they should limit them! by mhore · 2003-05-28 08:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Only 1 per family.

*ducks*

--

Mmmm......sacrelicious.

Re:Maybe they should limit them! by wolf- · 2003-05-28 16:19 · Score: 1

I wish I could toss you another funny. This was truly worthy.

--
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
Re:Maybe they should limit them! by Vengeance · 2003-06-03 01:10 · Score: 1

LOL Dess, thats' a good'un.

--
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.

Yeah, but . . . by harley_frog · 2003-05-28 08:16 · Score: 1

China, for example, was assigned 22 million IP addresses (for a population of 1.3 billion) under IPv4.

I wonder how many of those IP addresses are to spam servers.

--
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.

Japan can have some of our IP addresses... by ibbie · 2003-05-28 08:16 · Score: 3, Funny

...when they start releasing their US-version video games and anime in a more timely manner. :D

--
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.

The author doesn't know what he's talking about... by illumin8 · 2003-05-28 08:16 · Score: 1

I was reading the article just fine until I got to this point:

When that final address is used up in a couple of years, the online world will grind to a halt.

Obviously this is totally incorrect. When we run out of IPv4 addresses the Internet will still keep routing packets happily just as it always has. He makes it sound as if the entire Internet will just meltdown or something...

It will force network administrators that can no longer receive IP address blocks from ARIN to be more creative and possibly start to use NAT devices and reallocate IP addresses that are not being effectively utilized.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

Korea wasteful of IP addresses by whoever57 · 2003-05-28 08:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Of course, Asia's problem is entirely unrelated to Korea handing out blocks of 64 numbers to elementary schools, blocks of 128 to middle schools, etc.

Have they not heard of NAT?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Re:Korea wasteful of IP addresses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:22 · Score: 1, Funny

...blocks of 16777216 to U.S. colleges (MIT)...

Hooray! by Digital+Dharma · 2003-05-28 08:17 · Score: 0

There WILL be a limit to how much spam they can send us!

--
End of Line.

Re:IPv6? Yes because NAT is too limited by jcdr · 2003-05-28 08:18 · Score: 5, Informative

NAT is pefect to extend the network of one single entity, but is a very limited solution to extend the network to several entity.

If you have only one public adresse you have a single port for each services. Despite the fact that most services can extended by virtual one this is not the case for all of them (think SSH, or IPSec for example) and this require a high degre of coordination between the entity.

So IPv6 could be the cheapest way to solve the problem. And this could provids a good boost to the network market...

Nice Troll by BovineSpirit · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 1

"deployment of IPv6 networks across the globe will be gradual, gradual as michael easing himself into taco's backside, the two standards will coexist for many years to come."

This is a good thing by muckdog · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 1

Can you imagine how much more spam would be relayed through insecured asian mail servers if they had access to twice as many IP addresses.

Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

On the other hand blindingly portscanning IP ranges is infeasible. Can you imagine scanning a /64? That's like 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IP. If you could scan at a rate of 1 Million IP per second it would take over 584,942 years. And with the minimum packet size of 576 bytes it would take a 9,2 Gbps of bandwidth just to ping 1 Million IPs in a second.
Re:This is a good thing by grimani · 2003-05-28 11:26 · Score: 1

How about, since there are so many IPs in IPv6 anyway, doing away with ports altogether?

Ditch TCP in favor of a better protocol, and assign an IP to each application instance?

Makes implementation of a network stack easier, because now IP doesn't have to reach into the transport layer to grab port #'s when sending, say, ICMP responses.

Get with the times by Royster · 2003-05-28 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Classless addressing is 10 years old. Go read about CIDR if you can still find any of theose ancient documents. There are no more class As. There haven't been for a decade. Any old Class As were chopped up into /9s, /10s ... , and /26s ages ago.

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i

Re:Get with the times by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

The legacy class A assignments just became /8 assignments. Not all of them have been chopped up (other than inside the companies with those assignments). Maybe those companies should be the first to go with IPv6.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Get with the times by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 16:00 · Score: 0

Contrary to what you'd like to believe, class-based addressing is still alive and well. Hell, check out Cisco's IOS when specifying networks that routing protocols know about. It bases the number of bits used for the network address upon, you guessed it, the range that the first few bits fall into.
Re:Get with the times by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 19:01 · Score: 0

Well, how come I was then taught about class A, B and C internet addresses in college in 1995 ? They didn't even mention this alleged "CIDR" system. Thus, you must be lying.

NO IP for YOU!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 0

NO soup either

Re:NO IP for YOU!!! by irving47 · 2003-05-28 08:25 · Score: 2, Funny

That's funny. We used to call our IP administrator the IP Nazi.

Of course, that changed when he was promoted and the new guy was German... Well, it changed out loud in public!

--
I had a sucky sig.

IP Evolution by tarsi210 · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's just IP Evolution, folks.

Why hasn't IPv6 been adopted yet? Because it's expensive to switch, or a pain in the ass, or both, or people are stubborn, or....There's a million reasons, some better than others.

However, this is the sort of thing that you will see and will enable IPv6 to come into use. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? Well, we have the invention, now we just need the necessity. Running out of IP space? Sounds like a good necessity to me!

I'm not really worried about it. They'll either NAT it or they'll switch. If they switch (which I hope they do), it'll just encourage more of the world to do so. The market embraces the greater of a) what makes sense or b) what people are using. Evolution in action.

--
Blog,Twitter

Re:IP Evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:00 · Score: 0

Well, if they do switch to IPv6, do us a favor and tell the big guys up there to switch the US over to the metric system while you're at it, will ya? =)
Re:IP Evolution by tarsi210 · 2003-05-28 11:48 · Score: 1

I thought about that, too, but it was a can of worms that I didn't have the strength to open here on /. :)

--
Blog,Twitter

ALTERED Artical Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 1, Informative

This text in the parent post does not reflect the contents of the artical, but been altered from the original source.

The parent post should be moderated down as a troll.

Re:ALTERED Artical Text by deadsaijinx* · 2003-05-28 08:33 · Score: 1

no, he should be moderated up as one smart bastard. It just goes to prove that moderators don't pay attention. and makes me laugh.

--
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Re:ALTERED Artical Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:56 · Score: 0

The parent post should be moderated down as humor impaired.

And it's articel! Not artical. Sheesh.
Re:ALTERED Artical Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 22:57 · Score: 0

Actually it's article
Re:ALTERED Artical Text by Beliskner · 2003-05-30 21:13 · Score: 1

he should be moderated up as one smart bastard. It just goes to prove that moderators don't pay attention. and makes me laugh.
Ahhhhhhhh, an excellent example of an information poisoning attack on unsigned/unencrypted data.

--
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?

Where's the Great Firewall(s) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 0

I'm not clear why this is an issue. Most of their machines should be using the public (or whatever they're called) addresses behind a proxy or someother NAT front-end. No doubt a lot of addresses in the US could/should be freed up too.

this newsbreak... by Connie_Lingus · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 2, Funny

has been sponsered by Cisco and Nortel, makers of fine routers and hubs since...well, for a couple of years now.

--
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-05-28 08:20 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

We'll create the "dot com boom" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:21 · Score: 0

and take over 70% of the world's IP addresses and then sell them to China for......one hundred billion dollars!

Re:We'll create the "dot com boom" by vasqzr · 2003-05-28 08:22 · Score: 1

We spent about that on the war with Iraq.

We'd probably have to charge them one hundred trillion dollars.

good, less spam by kevincw01 · 2003-05-28 08:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

And when they're forced to move to ipv6, ill be sure to take note of what they get so I can REJECT that in my /etc/mail/access.db too.

--
netkev.com

Re:good, less spam by Tablizer · 2003-05-28 08:37 · Score: 2, Funny

It is all those spam servers over there that use it up :-)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:good, less spam by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:34 · Score: 0

Realistically, if the Commie Chinese wanted to bring down the source of all Western economical power, the internet. How may $299 eMachines would they need?

22M Spammers is Enough by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-05-28 08:22 · Score: 0, Redundant

China, for example, was assigned 22 million IP addresses

Don't give them any more. 22M spam relays is plenty.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:22M Spammers is Enough by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-05-28 08:38 · Score: 1

It wasn't redundant when I started composing that post.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

What he said... by randomErr · 2003-05-28 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Everyone is saying they should convert to IPv6.

We all know that Asian countries should convert to IPv6. The better question is will they?

The answer is and overwhelming No. Most organizations will convert to NAT and release some of thier B classes. Others will switch to pre-existing, non-IP based, protocals with cheap interfaces like token ring(Think Novell and IPX). A handful of companies will setup a IPv6 router that will tunnel thier IPv4 traffic.

With the recession no one, especially Asian countries, has the money or time to convert.

--
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?

Re:What he said... by Eric+Smith · 2003-05-28 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Others will switch to pre-existing, non-IP based, protocals with cheap interfaces like token ring(Think Novell and IPX).
Surely you jest. No one in their right mind would switch from IP to non-IP protocols at this point, and even if they did, they certainly wouldn't need to switch to Token Ring to do it. Token Ring is dead, dead, dead! And good riddance!
Re:What he said... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-05-28 09:13 · Score: 1

We all know that Asian countries should convert to IPv6. The better question is will they?

Yes. All the other solutions have serious drawbacks and cost just as much money, if not more to implement.
Re:What he said... by Wateshay · 2003-05-28 09:26 · Score: 1

As soon as it's cheaper to switch than it is to not switch, people will switch. They won't be able to afford not to (since their competitors certainly will). On the other hand, no one is going to spend the time or money to convert just because it's a gee-whiz new technology. In the U.S. there is no impetus, because NAT is good enough. However, NAT won't scale up well enough to put 2 billion people all behind NATs. So, eventually they will hit a wall and be forced to convert. It may not be in our lifetimes (although I personally am betting on 10 years), but it will definitely happen. As for the recession (if we are in one, rather than just a slowdown), it's not going to last forever, and it certainly isn't going to last long against the timeframe that a switchover to IPv6 of Asia would be against.

--

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Re:What he said... by roman_mir · 2003-05-28 12:47 · Score: 1

Surely you do not work in the bank industry. I work for a canadian company that belongs to three major canadian banks (unlike the US, Canada only has 5 or 6 banks, anything else that wants to act like one will be called a trust of some sort.) In this company I have seen entire departments using token ring based networks, it is amazing but true.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:What he said... by Eric+Smith · 2003-05-28 15:43 · Score: 1

And how many companies that don't already have an investment in token ring do you think are buying new token ring gear now? Answer: none at all.
Token ring had some minor technical advantages over 10base5 and 10base2 ethernet years ago, but also had some substantial disadvantages. The introduction of 10baseT hubs mostly negated token ring's advantages, and the introduction of Ethernet switches have put Ethernet unquestionably far ahead of token ring. There is now literally no technical basis for choosing token ring for a new network.
In the early to mid 1990s, I was a software developer writing software for multiprotocol routers. We supported token ring, but we had very few customers for it even then. Today I seriously doubt that we'd be able to sell any, even to banks and airlines.
The banks around here might still have some token ring equipment in operation, but all their new stuff seems to be 100baseT and 1000baseT.

As I see it... by zipsonic · 2003-05-28 08:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

THe majority of articles/posts/blogs re IPv6 say that it will change the world and solve all our problems, but everyone cites the chicken/egg example as to why it doesnt happen.

We know that we have a limited IP space. We know that IPv6 has better security features. We know that the US is very stingy on everything it does. Articles telling us all this wont change anything.

Not trying to diminish the fact that it needs to be fixed, but SOMEONE NEEDS TO START THE PROCESS AND FIX IT!

It will take big corporations and ISP's to finally say, You cant do business with us unless you move. We need a big change to happen like this or IPv6 will take 20 yrs to become a reality... and you think we have IP problems now?

Re:As I see it... by TopShelf · 2003-05-28 08:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Then why don't they just try IPv5 as an interim step, so it wouldn't be so scary to take on???

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:As I see it... by hesiod · 2003-05-28 08:52 · Score: 1

> It will take big corporations and ISP's to finally say, You cant do business with us unless you move.

Don't think that's the way it works. Businesses want to make money. They don't see the eventual problems with IPv4, they don't see any other businesses (read: competitors) doing it, so why should they? Businesses will only remove access to IPv4 once there is at least 75% (shot in the dark figure) of their potential customers have already switched.

That, of course, does not apply to ISPs, who should have already considered IPv6, if not partially implemented it, as you suggested. So, IMO you are half-correct.
Re:As I see it... by paskie · 2003-05-28 09:48 · Score: 1

The change is actually happening. Slowly, silently, gradually, like all the articles/posts/blogs were actually suggesting. IPv6 _IS_ deployed between ISPs (_not_ only universities/academic networks) more and more widely in Asia (especially Japan, but I guess Taiwan or China as well), but lately also in Europe (from Finland through Netherlands to Austria). You can get native v6 connectivity to home in Japan or Netherlands. Most of the IXes are prepared for routing IPv6 traffic (or are already doing it). You can go from Czech Republic to France over IPv6 all-native, and it's actually faster than IPv4.

It's perhaps a bit worse with "the big corporations", but I think there are some movements visible as well, hopefully at least in Japan if not quite in Europe yet. It just all depends on the market demand. Asia is short on addresses, so it is leading in the IPv6 world, the press is the greatest. Europe is not so bad on it, but the movement is visible here as well. America feels comfortable with the addresses it has (mostly), so the motivation is not quite there (I know that IPv6 is not only about addresses, of course; it is the prime driving factor anyway, though). So you don't see much happenning in America. It is just at the other side of the cutting edge front, currently.

--
It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
Re:As I see it... by amorsen · 2003-05-28 09:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why don't you switch? What is stopping you?
And before you turn that one back on me: I am already dual-stack with NAT'd IPv4 and real IPv6 addresses for the hosts. So I am not holding things back. I love autoconfiguration by the way. No configuration on the hosts at all. IPv6 is so simple and easy compared to IPv4.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:As I see it... by dacarr · 2003-05-28 09:59 · Score: 1

It won't happen until Microsoft supports IPv6. Last I checked, this was still on their list of things to do.

--
This sig no verb.
Re:As I see it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:07 · Score: 0

XP and Win2003 are both billed as having IPv6, though I haven't tried either
(naturally the local broadband duopoly don't have IPv6, and my apartment has all of four machines).
Re:As I see it... by maxpublic · 2003-05-28 10:31 · Score: 2, Funny

I ignore AC's. Use your real name.

Your parents must've had a sick sense of humor. If your real name is 'dacarr', is your brother's name 'daplane! daplane!'?

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:As I see it... by dacarr · 2003-05-28 11:43 · Score: 1

No, but there's one we call "damarine". =)

--
This sig no verb.
Re:As I see it... by Zeinfeld · 2003-05-28 12:31 · Score: 1

It won't happen until Microsoft supports IPv6. Last I checked, this was still on their list of things to do.
It is implemented in Windows XP SP1 and Windows 2003

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:As I see it... by cyb97 · 2003-05-28 13:46 · Score: 1

Rumours has it that Windows XP even defaults to IPv6 now... (as it's 100 times easier to auto-configure)

IPV6 won't happen... by scovetta · 2003-05-28 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative

until a business need exists for it. Since US companies (ISPs, schools, etc) will have to back it first, and most won't make any extra money from Lao Po in Beijing having a class D instead of a NAT'ed single IP, I don't see this happening. And since US ISPs are now NAT'ing and giving people gateways like 255.255.255.254, they've delayed our running out of IPs for quite a while. And to the guy who mentioned that MIT probably isn't using their entire class A, I think they've given a unique IP to each student, book, pencil, and brick on campus.

--
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche

Re:IPV6 won't happen... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 16:14 · Score: 0

You want quick IPv6 adoption? Put a kick-ass P2P client out that only works with v6, but offers features not available with the current v4 clients.

Once the public is demanding v6, there's your business case.

Is it possible to add more drama? by bbc22405 · 2003-05-28 08:25 · Score: 1

When that final address is used up in a couple of years, the online world will grind to a halt.

Death of the Internet predicted, photos at 11!
Yawn.

APNIC by mlyle · 2003-05-28 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative

One quibble-

Asia doesn't get numbering from the American Registry for Internet Numbers; they come from APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Center).

Otherwise, a good point.

Re:APNIC by illumin8 · 2003-05-28 09:40 · Score: 1

Yes, you're correct... Sometimes I forget there are actually other countries out there besides the U.S... :P

Just kidding.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

moron seeing no number shortage by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:26 · Score: 0

out of the billyon or so already unbrowsed #'s, there's ?#? (why not say 100?) sites whois getting 90% of the trafecta. almost a billyun #'s left over.

now, here icann be sitting proudly with my dedicated IP 'address', fully sited out with the greatest gadget ever. gooed enough? when does the monIE start flowwwing in? what, icanN'T be found? shock De blur!@#$% whois it i MuSt pay now? the corepirate nazis (the word banner is obviously no mistake), after all?

what's missing here (or, at your ip)? consult with yOUR creator. that's the spirit.

NAT China by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-05-28 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

China, for example, was assigned 22 million IP addresses (for a population of 1.3 billion)

Given that China has already firewalled the whole country, why don't they just NAT the whole country as well. Then, with a little cleverness, they can have the whole address space available to them alone.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:NAT China by SuperBanana · 2003-05-28 08:44 · Score: 1, Troll

Then, with a little cleverness, they can have the whole address space available to them alone.
Please explain to me how assigning ROUTEABLE addresses to people inside your private network is going to work?
If there's a 1.2.3.4 in the real world, and you give Joe Shmoe on your private network 1.2.3.4, the router's gotta pick one or the other, bub.
How this got modded up to 4 is beyond me. It's obvious the poster has ZERO understanding of IP routing...

--
Please help metamoderate.
Re:NAT China by dacetone · 2003-05-28 09:09 · Score: 1

True story, I had a customer who insisted on using 111.222.x.x for his NATting. He swore that his old ISP had let him. He was very angry when I explained the concept (and why it's important) behind the assigned NAT ips)

--
Just follow the day, and reach fo
Re:NAT China by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-05-28 09:12 · Score: 1

It's obvious the poster has ZERO understanding of IP routing
You're just not going to be nice, are you. Glad you're not moderating today. I'd get all 5 of your minus points.
Let me expand for you on a couple of possibilities.
Institutions like MIT and companies like HP among others have Class A allocations (16M IPv4 addresses each) which they use internally to uniquely identify every computer in their organizations. (I've been at HP, and MIT is dicussed here otherwise.) Of this allocation, very few of these machines are exposed to the outside world in ways that can't, and shouldn't, be NATted by their firewalls. By identifying the small subset of exposed, public IP address, an internal network with its own routing tables can reuse all the remaining ones themselves with no modifications required. This alone could give over a large percentage of the possible IPv4 addresses for reuse to any entity with centralized control (e.g. China, maybe India) over their country's Internet infrastructure who also needs more IP address for internal use. Then people like China can reserve their 22M allocation for exposed, public IP address for the world at large. Yes, even those will run out eventually, but probably not in the next 2 years.
A second way is to identify a packet as internal to your network, or external to the Internet at large, using an otherwise available flag bit at the sender's end and let your customized routers direct it accordingly internal to your network, or external to the world at large. This is already the way 192.*.*.* address work. Maybe extra work for the sender to identify the network s/he wants. Perhaps can be automated.
Yes these are non-worldwide standard approches, but hardly unworkable.
I said a little bit of cleverness is involved, but within your own network you can set your own rules. So chill a byte before someone mods you down for flaming. After all, you don't know me well enough yet to dislike me that much.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:NAT China by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:36 · Score: 0

You can use NAT and a Category A address range and it would work quite nicely. Stupid motherfucker.
Re:NAT China by shepd · 2003-05-28 12:16 · Score: 1

>If there's a 1.2.3.4 in the real world, and you give Joe Shmoe on your private network 1.2.3.4, the router's gotta pick one or the other, bub.

Exactly. It picks the internal address.

You missed the whole joke, unfortunately. When you firewall everyone outside, why worry about re-using their addresses?

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC

re: vote to impeach by MORTAR_COMBAT! · 2003-05-28 08:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Why bother? By the time any such impeachment process would come to any fruition, you could already be filling out your ballot in November, 2004. Instead of circulating completely pointless petitions for impeachment, circulate the agenda of some other candidate for president.

--
MORTAR COMBAT!

30% of ipv4 space still unallocated by ruud · 2003-05-28 08:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

roughly 30 percent of the available ipv4 space has not been allocated to anyone yet. every now and then, iana allocates a /8 block to apnic. so even if apnic is running out of space in the currently assigned addresses, there is still quite a lot of space available that could be allocated to them.

--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti

Re:30% of ipv4 space still unallocated by Alomex · 2003-05-28 09:43 · Score: 1

and another 30% is allocated but unused. So in total 60% of IPv4 space is free. I don't see where the problem is really. Yes IANA might have to reallocate a some blocks, and?? it happens all the time... we just coughed up some of our old class C allocations...

firewall your phone? by kevincw01 · 2003-05-28 08:27 · Score: 1

phones DO NOT need their own external IP. Much safer behind a NAT. A simple DOS could kill the power on the phone in an hour.

--
netkev.com

Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by patniemeyer · 2003-05-28 08:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

I did the following fun calculations once for a book I was working on (let me know if they're wrong):

There are about six billion people on earth and each person's body consists of about 100 trillion cells. With 128 bit addressing each individual cell in every human being could have 100 trillion addresses. I believe that is on par with 1 address per molecule.

To put it another way we cannot, with current technology, use all of these addresses in any physical way. We can't even count them (literally). Suppose you have a machine that can do a trillion operations per second; then suppose that you have a billion such machines connected via the Internet and we ask each one to simply start counting through part of the address space. I believe it will take about 3 billion years for them to finish.

Pat Niemeyer
Author of Learning Java, O'Reilly & Associates and the BeanShell Java scripting language.

Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:48 · Score: 0

And 32 bits should be enough, as it's over 4 billion, and considering NAT-ing, that provides for 4 billion directly addressable, and 4 billion SQUARED indirectly addressable, IF they were Doled out properly.
But the Al-Gore-ithm of assigning IP addresses is inefficient. The same problems will come up with IPv6, only it will be delayed a bit. It's all a game of balancing overhead (128 bits vs 32 bits) with current need.
This is one of those "No one will ever need more than 640K" statements: "128 bit addressing will solve the addressing needs indefinitely". Bookmark this page and come back in 30 years and laugh at your ignorance.
In 30 years we will be talking about how woefully insufficient 128-bit addressing is. Mark my word.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by spaceyhackerlady · 2003-05-28 08:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

There are about six billion people on earth and each person's body consists of about 100 trillion cells. With 128 bit addressing each individual cell in every human being could have 100 trillion addresses. I believe that is on par with 1 address per molecule.

A necessary number: number of IPV6 addresses is 2**128 = 3.4E38.
Hmmm...lessee now, 6E9 people, 1E14 cells per person, that makes 6E23 cells. That's about 5E14 IPV6 addresses (five hundred trillion) per cell.
Per molecule? Let's assume an average person's mass is 60 kg, and that the average molecular weight of the human body is 25 (we are mostly water). That makes (60 * 1000) / 25 * 6.02E23 = 1.4E27 molecules per person. Total Earth population is then 6E9 * 1.4E27 = 8.4E36 molecules. Actually about 40 addresses per molecule.
My other favourite number is how many IPV6 addresses each square micron of the Earth's surface could have:
Earth's surface area in square microns = 4 pi (6378 * 1000 * 1000000) ** 2 = 5.1E26
3.4E38 / 5.1E26 = 6.6E11
A big number!
...laura
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh gawd yes. A geeky chick. It's a slashdot wet dream cum true!
Do some more math for us. You know how that turns us on!
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by hugesmile · 2003-05-28 09:11 · Score: 1

Yeah, but... How many library of congresses is this?
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by apachetoolbox · 2003-05-28 09:50 · Score: 2, Funny

are you married? :)
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by Eric+Smith · 2003-05-28 09:58 · Score: 1

The reason for having 128-bit adresses isn't that we can expect to have 2^128 IP-enabled devices any time soon. (Unless there's a breakthrough in nanotechnology!) The reason is that it is in general not possible to assign the addresses efficiently.
In order to keep the routing tables for the backbones reasonable (only millions of entries, not billions), the addresses have to be doled out in a hierarchical fashion. At each level of the hierarchy some inefficency of allocation occurs.
The good news is that with IPv6, there won't be any technical reason for your ISP to limit you to a miniscule number of IP addresses. They may still do it for marketing or product differentiation reasons. They really like the ability to charge per IP address. Because of this, I expect that NAT will be used even with IPv6, despite there being no technical need for it.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by pe1chl · 2003-05-28 10:15 · Score: 1

When I asked for an IPv6 address at my provider, they assigned me a /48 block. It does not seem I will need NAT with that.
And this is just with a consumer account, nothing business or special.

(in fact I think that such an assignment is a little over the top, but well there are still 2^16 more of these blocks than there are IPv4 addresses...)
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by patniemeyer · 2003-05-28 10:20 · Score: 1

I do realize that the problem is in doling out the address space... it's just fun to do the math. On that topic here is a reference I had noted:

"Christian Huitema performed an analysis in which evaluated the efficiency of other
addressing architecture's (including the French telephone system, USA telephone
systems, current internet using IPv4, and IEEE
802 nodes). He concluded that 128bit IPng addresses could accommodate between 8x
10^^17 to 2x10^^33 nodes assuming
efficiency in the same ranges as the other addressing architecture's. Even his most pessimistic estimate this would provide 1,564
addresses for each square meter of the surface of the planet Earth. The optimistic estimate would allow for 3,911,873,538,269,506,102 addresses for each square meter of the surface of the
planet Earth."

[8]C. Huitema, "The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency" RFC-1715, November 1994.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by Col+Bat+Guano · 2003-05-28 11:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, but just wait until we get an Interplanetary Internet. Then you'll have to start mapping IP addresses to the surface area of all the other planets as well, and that's sure to thin things out a bit.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by suwain_2 · 2003-05-28 13:35 · Score: 1

My favorite 'statistic' regarding IPv6 is to simply evaluate 2^128:

340282366920938463463374607431768211456

For those not sure what comes after a billion:
$ number 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 three hundred forty undecillion. two hundred eighty-two decillion. three hundred sixty-six nonillion. nine hundred twenty octillion. nine hundred thirty-eight septillion. four hundred sixty-three sextillion. four hundred sixty-three quintillion. three hundred seventy-four quadrillion. six hundred seven trillion. four hundred thirty-one billion. seven hundred sixty-eight million. two hundred eleven thousand. four hundred fifty-six.

I had never even heard of an "undecillion" before this. :)

--
________________________________________________
suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by stesch · 2003-05-28 13:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

A necessary number: number of IPV6 addresses is 2**128 = 3.4E38.
You don't have 2^32 addresses with IPv4. And you don't have 2^128 with IPv6.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 14:24 · Score: 0

and yet some day, we'll run out.

my positronic shark brain requires one *trillion* IPs, muhahahaha
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by Eric+Smith · 2003-05-28 15:35 · Score: 1

I think you mean that they gave you a /80, so that you have 48 bits of address under your control. Or perhaps I have the terminology wrong. Anyhow, the reason for giving you 48 bits is that your Ethernet devices (and any other 802 networking devices) can simply use their MAC address as the last 48 bits of their IPv6 address, thus avoiding the need for manual assignment or for a DHCP-like dynamic address allocation scheme.
It will certainly be nice if that proves to be standard practice.
There was a nice overview of the IPv6 protocol in an article in one of the Linux magazines recently, possibly the January 2003 issue of Linux Journal but I'm not sure. Anyhow, the article dicussed the various types of IPv6 address assignment, but I don't recall the details.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 01:09 · Score: 0

So there aren't enough addresses for every atom in the galaxy. Darn.

But I bet that this is enough for a pretty good size intergalactic empire.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... by pe1chl · 2003-05-30 21:06 · Score: 1

No, that is not true!

They gave me a /48. I am sure. That means I have
65536 networks of 64 bits each!

Numbers by harmonica · 2003-05-28 08:28 · Score: 1

40 - 60% of the Chinese population own a computer? Do you have anything to back that up?

Re:Numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:50 · Score: 0

I don't think he can. According to http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/china g.htm, 1.7% of the chinese population has a personal computer.

Well, gee by TheCabal · 2003-05-28 08:29 · Score: 1

Maybe if China, Korea and Taiwan all got rid of their spamhosts, that would free up a significant amount of addresses. 99% of the stuff I get from Asia both at work and at home is spam.

Me too... by FuzzyDaddy · 2003-05-28 08:29 · Score: 2, Funny

The world has been running out of IP addresses, and suffering from global warming for as long as I can remember...

And people tell me I'm going to die some day for as long as I can remember... of all the crazy ideas...

--
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.

Re:How much by ellem · 2003-05-28 08:30 · Score: 1

98.6%

--
This .sig is fake but accurate.

Re:Article Text -- Overblown assumptions by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-05-28 08:30 · Score: 1

When that final address is used up in a couple of years, the online world will grind to a halt.

Now there is an overblown statement worthy of any politician. The world would not grind to a halt. The expansion would just cease until the solution everyone keeps avoiding (IPv6) becomes truly necessary.

Time to buy Cicso again.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

(OT) Shower Shock Ad by istartedi · 2003-05-28 08:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Caffeinated soap??? What will ThinkGeek caffeinate next...

...condoms, for when your partner keeps falling asleep on you?

...combs, for when your hair is just "laying there"?

...steering wheels?

...lecture/concert hall seats.

Can you actually caffeinate any of this junk? What's scary is that if the soap has enough caffeine in it to get into your system, what would happen if you actually ate a chunk of it?

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Re:(OT) Shower Shock Ad by deadsaijinx* · 2003-05-28 09:01 · Score: 1

hey, call me when you find a manufacturer for the caffinated condoms

--
YOU SUCK BALLS!

News Alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:32 · Score: 0

Troops from Ft. Bragg received deployment orders this morning ordering them to Japan as diplomatic tension with China increased over the assignment of Internet Protocol addresses. The deployment follows just days after a high-stakes showdown at the United Nations where Chinese Ambassador Wang Yingfan accused the United States of waging electronic terrorism against the Chinese People. In an extended statement, Ambassador Yingfan argued:

After repeated rejection in the past seven years, a small number of countries have once again raised the issue of so-called "China's participation in the Internet" in an attempt to create a "backward country" and wage "economic terrorism" by limiting electronic trade. This is a violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as Resolution 2835 of the General Assembly. We strongly oppose the hoarding of Internet addresses embodied in supplementary item 13 of the draft agenda in the agenda of the 64th session of the General Assembly. We hope that the Security Council will continue to uphold justice, and safeguard the purposes and principles of the UN Charter as well as provide digital opportunity for all peoples.

Will IPV6 really solve this? by moosesocks · 2003-05-28 08:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not sure if IPv6 will solve anything. It seems to me that the whole concept of "IP addressing" seems quite archaic. The international telephone system doesn't need to 'dish out' phone numbers between countries - each country has its own country code, and everything else is handled wihin the country.

Hell. The whole concept of the 'internet' by means of Tcp/IP is becoming quite dated. Why can't we combine the domain naming system with the IP system. What I would propose is to give each computer on a given domain an alphanumeric name (can contain any type of characters, and is decided by the owner of the domain - basically the same as todays concept of a 'hostname'. The domains, in turn, are managed by an independent organization in each country, followed by a country code. For example, a sample address would be
Joe Smith@Earthlink@USA (users within the USA can leave the @USA blank)

this eliminates the need for a domain naming system. takes a lot of power away from ICANN, would help to solve cybersquatting, and provides an infinite number of computer addresses (at no point should the 'name' need to be translated into a numeric address.

Computers behind a router should be able to have their own address as well (multiple servers on one address without the mess of port forwarding! With many home users now running their own web/music servers, this could be a godsend. For example:
MediaServer@JohnSmith@Earthlink@USA

Anybody should be able to get their domain, but those who do not have their own should simply share one with their ISP.

Unix geeks will probably balk at my radical ideas. but it needs to be done. the numbered IP system was concieved when the only computers on the 'net were run by the people who wrote the protocols,. Nowindays, computers are used by everybody (and their grandmothers!). and it made sense too, as bandwidth was very limited, and the programmers never intended for so many computers to be on the net, and cut corners to gain a small speed advantage (a few bits per packet - which was a lot back then. now, it's nothing). IPv6 simply continued to use (longer) archaic addresses - the problem still exists; we need another layer for domain names, and it's confusing as hell to non-geeky types)

I know my ideas seem radical, and will probably never be accepted... but I certainly would hope that we fix some of this. IPv6 isn't a solution - it's avoiding the problem.

(yes, this was somewhat inspired by Apple's rendevous, which addresses many of my concerns, but is by no means acceptable for a worldwide scale. On a side note, I believe that in order for rendevous to succeed, Apple needs to open it up, and allow M$ and Linux to interoperate with it.)

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

Re:Will IPV6 really solve this? by kevin+lyda · 2003-05-28 08:48 · Score: 0, Troll

the above response is a troll. please mark it as such.

--
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Re:Will IPV6 really solve this? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-05-28 09:08 · Score: 1

The whole concept of the 'internet' by means of Tcp/IP is becoming quite dated.

For example, a sample address would be
Joe Smith@Earthlink@USA (users within the USA can leave the @USA blank)

this eliminates the need for a domain naming system. takes a lot of power away from ICANN, would help to solve cybersquatting, and provides an infinite number of computer addresses (at no point should the 'name' need to be translated into a numeric address

Not hardly. Computers are going to continue to use binary for the forseeable future. While that continues there will continue to be a need to translate names into a binary representation, something your naming scheme totally ignores. No matter what you name something there is still going to have to be translation between the name and a numerical address.

IPv4 does this, but doesn't provice enough codes - only 4 billion; clearly not enough for a world wide internet on a planet with more than 6 billion people.

IPv6 provides many more addresses - enough to allocate each person on earth more than a billion IP addresses.

Your proposal is a solution to a problem that was solved years ago; all that really remains is deployment of that solution.

Nor does establishment of a new naming scheme change the political and business motivations that lead to cybersquatting and trademark infringements. Some names are going to be more desirable than others. And there will need to be a body to settle disputes.

In fact, your naming scheme of joe@joeville@michigan@us is already in place. Countries already administer TLDs ending on country codes. It has solved none of the issues you refer to.
Re:Will IPV6 really solve this? by thebigmacd · 2003-05-28 09:11 · Score: 1

the above response is a troll. please mark it as such. I disagree. Not off-topic, not insulting, offers suggestions.
Re:Will IPV6 really solve this? by MadPhatTim · 2003-05-28 11:56 · Score: 1

On a side note, I believe that in order for rendevous to succeed, Apple needs to open it up, and allow M$ and Linux to interoperate with it.
What, like releasing it as an open source technology and submitting it as an IETF standard? Yeah, that's a great idea. I wish Apple had thought of that.

IPv6 + NATPT by nsayer · 2003-05-28 08:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

The migration path, in general, is to use DNS proxies and NATPT to make the transition appear to IPv6 users to be instantaneous.

I did this a while ago at my house. My network actually had no IPv4 on it at all for a few weeks. I stopped because a couple of applications didn't support IPv6 and because the KAME NATPT I grafted into my FreeBSD source tree broke. I did it sort of as a proof of concept, and it succeeded sufficiently for me to propose that IPv6-only ISPs could easily use the technique.

You first set up a DNS proxy. totd (Trick or Treat Daemon) is a good one. Its job is to turn requests for AAAA records into requests for AAAA or A records, and to translate A record replies into AAAA records with a special prefix tacked on to the high bits. This will make it look as though the whole IPv4 Internet is hidden inside of a special /96 prefix.

Coincidently, you route that /96 prefix into a NATPT. IPv6 packets go in, IPv4 packets come out and are sent to the IPv4 Internet as if they had gone through a NAT.

Having done this, all of the ISPs customers would see a complete IPv6-only Inernet, but they could still interact with legacy (IPv4) sites as if they were IPv6. As more and more ISPs convert over, the IPv4 network will simply shrink slowly until it's gone, but in the meantime remain as accessable as it currently is.

With such a transition plan in place, the more people who move to IPv6, the emptier the IPv4 Internet experience becomes (however, folks trapped with IPv4 only providers could use techniques like 6to4 to escape the legacy network), which in turn becomes the driving force for transition.

So, Enough stories are turning up... When is /. going to support IPv6?

Re:IPv6 + NATPT by Lxy · 2003-05-28 09:14 · Score: 4, Informative

When is /. going to support IPv6?

I love IPv6. I've played with it in the lab, and it's nifty! I'm in charge of restructuring my company's IP layout, guess what I suggested. Interestingly enough, when I proposed my plan on #ipv6 on freenode, the answer was a resounding DON'T DO IT. I have too much legacy stuff laying around that just won't support IPv6. Funny thing is, we are doing well on technology. I think of all the other businesses in worse shape than us, and I start to think. There is no way in hell IPv6 migration will happen any time soon. It's sometimes hard for us to see, especially when we do transparent stuff at home. What we forget is all the weird hardware that companies still depend on. There is some stuff that just won't go. We bought a Cisco router 3 years ago, its IOS won't support IPv6. That's only 3 years ago! Think of the legacy crap that was installed 10 years ago that still runs! NT servers that no one upgrades because they still work. We still have a Windows 3.1 machine that does its job, and in fact we broke trying to upgrade! Still works, it's easier to leave it alone. This kind of stuff happens everywhere, I've seen plenty of businesses with old hardware that's costly to upgrade and not broken.

IPv6 is great in the lab, and with brand new networks it's wonderful. Too much legacy hardware is going to keep it from being adopted on a large scale, and it won't happen anytime soon.

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Re:IPv6 + NATPT by AchilleTalon · 2003-05-28 09:30 · Score: 1

But, what about outside (IPV4) people trying to access servers inside (IPV6)?

--
Achille Talon
Hop!
Re:IPv6 + NATPT by nsayer · 2003-05-28 10:02 · Score: 1

That would not be possible, unless those on the IPv4 network use something like 6to4 to obtain connectivity with the IPv6 network.
Re:IPv6 + NATPT by amorsen · 2003-05-28 10:28 · Score: 1

Go dual stack for most things. Migrate your VoIP fully if you can, it is one of the places where v6 has obvious advantages over v4. Legacy routers are a problem, legacy hosts are not really a problem. Just move each service over when it makes business sense; things like moving HTTP proxy traffic to IPv6 and making the proxy convert when needed. Just beware, working with IPv6 can get you addicted. Debugging IPv4 seems so tedious and troublesome after you have tried IPv4.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:IPv6 + NATPT by Lxy · 2003-05-28 15:32 · Score: 1

Migrate your VoIP fully if you can

Fortunately we're not to VoIP yet. I think I can push the issue at that point, because VoIP on IPv4 is just silly.

Legacy routers can be upgraded, but cost DRAM, flash, and a Cisco contract. No, we can't just replace it with a zebra box, the boss won't let me :-(.

We're already handling transparent proxy on IPv4, and since we're using masq'd IPs there's not really a whole lot to gain there. What is to gain is to give back our 5 IPv4 blocks, but my new design consolodates us down to one /28 anyway, so we're still offloading IPv4 space without the upgrade costs of IPv6.

As for clients, Win9x and NT support IPv6 with the patches available, but word has it that they're quite buggy. IPv6 is a wonderful thing, but the world isn't up to the migration yet.

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Re:IPv6 + NATPT by amorsen · 2003-05-28 20:49 · Score: 1

Do not think of it as a migration. Just go dual stack. Everyone used to run dual (or even more) stack anyway, perhaps you remember IPX? NetBEUI? SNA?
As you say, push the issue (but do not call it a migration) when a new service appears where IPv6 has advantages. VoIP is one. Another is connections to internal servers at partner companies / customers / suppliers. Two-way NAT is just wrong. In 10 or 20 years you can call it a migration and celebrate by switching off the last IPv4 stack...

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

That's DOCTOR smartass to you! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:36 · Score: 0

Your inbox.

I can see it now... by Bull999999 · 2003-05-28 08:37 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Headline: SCO sues China for IP violations for using IPv6

CEO of SCO: We are suing China for 1 billion dollars because they are using IPv6 without licensing it from us.
Reporter: Does SCO own the IP for IPv6?
CEO: No but we do own a part (.005%) of ISP that assigns IPv6 addresses. Therefore, we believe that we own the contract rights to IPv6. We are also planning on suing Linus (again) because Linux has built in support for IPv6.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d

Umm... by inertia187 · 2003-05-28 08:37 · Score: 1

The US owns 70 percent of current IP addresses. Perhaps IPv6 will solve the problem.

Wouldn't the US still own 70 percent of the current IP addresses with IPv6? Or there abouts? How is this a problem? Actually, I'm surprised it's only 70 percent.

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.

Re:Umm... by thebatlab · 2003-05-28 10:13 · Score: 1

I don't think the percentage is the problem. I believe it's the actual amount that percentage represents that is the problem

Why 70%? by 7ex · 2003-05-28 08:37 · Score: 1

I wouldn't call it 'unfair', but why has got the US assigned 70% of the IPv4 Addressspace?
Can somebody explain this?

--
http://blog.gauner.org - just a blog

Well by mindstrm · 2003-05-28 08:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Technically, nobody "OWNS" Ip addresses; it is a convention we all adhere to and everything works together.

If, say, China just took a few class A spaces belonging to companies they don't care about in the US, and started using them internally, and even if a few other countries started agreeing with them, there would be no problem. As long as you don't go announcing routes to others in violation of how they want to do things, you are fine.

Nothing at the IANA forces anyone to use a certain address; they don't controll routing.. they just say who owns what, and those with the power to route defer to that to decide if they should do something or not.

Re:Well by jroysdon · 2003-05-28 15:48 · Score: 1

That's like saying that the InterNIC didn't control DNS. Yeah, you can start your own alternate DNS root, but no one is going to use it. I use the old InterNIC as an example as now it's a bit more messy with ICANN and dozens of registrars.

Perhaps NAT is a solution by nurb432 · 2003-05-28 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I dont see IP6 happening anytime soon, perhaps if they enforce NAT connections for everyone they can extend the lifetime a bit...

True it sucks to be stuck behind firewalls but its better then nothing..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:40 · Score: 0

If you're asking asinine questions like that, you obviously don't know shit about the topic. Stop wasting bandwidth with rhetorical questions.

As for "owning" IP addresses, it's like owning telephone numbers. Time for IPV6, and let the first few digits represent a country code.

ISPs to lose source of revenue with IPv6 by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-05-28 08:42 · Score: 1

I wonder if ISPs would still be able to charge extra for a static IP address after the conversion to IPv6? After all, the argument now is the supposed scarcity of them that commands premium prices.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:ISPs to lose source of revenue with IPv6 by xchino · 2003-05-28 08:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

No ISP worth their salt would. I work for an ISP, and I can confirm that it does cost us money to give you an IP, so it's going to cost you money too. When IPv6 is implemented it won't cost us anything, so it won't cost you anything. I've seen both our cost and our customers cost for IP addresses/ranges so much that it amazes me IPv6 isn't being implemented by every ISP already. It's just the chicken and the egg problem.

--
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Re:ISPs to lose source of revenue with IPv6 by FryGuy1013 · 2003-05-28 10:16 · Score: 1

Ah, but then they will charge you for computers connected, because they cause "additional bandwidth".

--
bananas like monkeys.
Re:ISPs to lose source of revenue with IPv6 by bvark · 2003-05-29 06:31 · Score: 1

There are two components of the cost of assigning IP addresses.

One is the administrative cost of someone picking your address, writing in the database it belongs to you and giving it to you.

The other is the cost of acquiring the addresses, which outside the ARIN region is pretty independant of the block size (RIPE/APNIC assign more blocks as you fill the old one, and don't charge outside the annual fee).

IPv6 makes the latter happen far less frequently, but does nothing for the former.
The large ISP I work for assigns addresses based on need charging a fixed amount that is not based on the size - this model is fairly common in Europe.

Yeah, right.... by NerveGas · 2003-05-28 08:45 · Score: 1

I'll bet that the REAL reason they need more IP addresses is because most people already have nearly all of APNIC's address space black-holed.

On a more serious note, remember that APNIC (the organization in question) covers more than just China, Taiwan, Japan, etc. - it also covers Pacific nations such as New Zealand, Australia, etc..

steve

--
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.

Re:Yeah, right.... by pe1chl · 2003-05-28 10:06 · Score: 1

That is right.
What isn't right is that they assign small blocks sequentially to countries all over their area.
What they should do is keep the assignments to China, Korea etc together in blocks, and put New Zealand, Australia etc in other blocks.

That would management of blocking tables much easier. We could just block things like 218.0.0.0/8

Those who do not learn from history.... by Orne · 2003-05-28 08:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apparently 95% of the slashdot community consists of either clueless newbie programmers, or people with huge chips on their shoulders outside of the United States....

The internet was developed by the United States using US capital, both intellectual and financial. It was a military project, then academic, then commercial, so IP address space was doled out in that order, to .mil and .gov, then to .edu, then to .coms .orgs and .nets. And THEN they went international. So it should be no surprise to everyone that a majority of the address space is reserved for the United States governments and academia (it is already mentioned that MIT holds a class A node).

I'm sick and tired of people calling for such-and-such to be "fair", where their definition of "fair" involves taking something (that cost a lot of investment) from the creators and giving it out (for free) to their friends and nations. There's nothing fair about this, because there doesn't have to be! Its a freakin internet address, made to fit an international scheme that was designed after the fact... There was no design at the beginning that Country A would get everything with 0x01... Besides, anyone with skills understands there are ways to work with the system, as also mentioned above: NAT, firewalling, subnetting...

Is it "fair" that cell phone are being designed to consume addresses to do messaging, or is that a design flaw? IMO, it's the Latter; do the same thing with DHCP and recycled addresses like any ISP. Is the US greedy, or a big corporate conspiracy to keep the asian markets out of the internet? How about it's really a case where the other players entered the game twenty years behind the times, and that's all that was left. Build your own addressing, implement it, and enough with the complaining about how the USA chooses to do its business!

Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by inerte · 2003-05-28 09:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait

That's also why Al Gore isn't your president.

--
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by axxackall · 2003-05-28 09:36 · Score: 1

You are right. And of cource America did it for free, right?
It would be fair if US would hold all IPv4 address space. It would be good for everyone as the "rest of the world" would go IPv6. Especially it would be good for US itself as it would finally kick fat american ass and force it to live in International Community, not as today - being surrounded by the "rest of the world".
I wonder, when American will understand that they are first of all humans and only second - Americans.

--

Less is more !
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by Ensonik · 2003-05-28 09:45 · Score: 1

Not that I disagree with you, but that's a load of shit. Americans don't do ANYTHING for free. If it looks like it's going to be free, it's a trick. It's always about advancing there own agenda. Not about being nice.
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by brer_rabbit · 2003-05-28 09:49 · Score: 1

Not that I disagree with you, but that's a load of shit. Americans don't do ANYTHING for free. If it looks like it's going to be free, it's a trick. It's always about advancing there own agenda. Not about being nice.
If you think the rest of the world is any different, I know a certain Nigerian prince who will help you earn $36 million dollars...
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by matsmats · 2003-05-28 10:16 · Score: 1

"Build your own addressing, implement it, and enough with the complaining about how the USA chooses to do its business!"

If you read the article it says that China hasn't got enough IPs for their regular computer users, cell phones or not, and that the Asian countries are building their own adressing infrastructure based on IPv6 to solve their IP problems, hoping the US and Europe will catch up with the superior technology by time. No one seems to care how the US chooses to do its business here, just hopes you will catch up.

And to learn from history, the internet went international way before the domain name system with your .mils and your .coms. About 15 years before with strategic military connections to Europe.

Probably because it was fair to give you access.
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:29 · Score: 0

I am first and foremost myself, other classifications are of decreasing importance. That you and I share the same species doesn't place you particularly high on my list of priorities.
The U.S. drives a fair amount of the "International Community," even if most of its constituents are chronically in denial of this, and while the average U.S. citizen doesn't particularly care about "the rest of the world," it doesn't detract from the important role the nation as a whole plays globally.
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by grimani · 2003-05-28 11:09 · Score: 1

You're living in the past. The Internet today is an international entity (witness the plethora of differing views on Slashdot) and hence ip allocation should too reflect that reality.
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:26 · Score: 0

Guess you'd better log off slashdot and dial back up on Minitel then.
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by Malcontent · 2003-05-28 11:34 · Score: 1

Nice to know that we are no worse then anybody else. It's always nice to see someone who sets the bar so low for themselves. "Look everybody we are no worse then them!" Whoo Hooo.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by Build6 · 2003-05-28 15:59 · Score: 1

f you read the article it says that China hasn't got enough IPs for their regular computer users, cell phones or not, and that the Asian countries are building their own adressing infrastructure

The Net is getting more fragmented. I recall some discussion previously about how the original conception of the net, and the use of IP, was to allow everyone to be a peer - you've got an IP, you can do your own thing, webserver, mail, etc.; all this is interfered with by firewalls, NAT, etc. Now there is an additional layer of "segmentation".

The need to shift to IPv6 and build new infrastructure also gives the authorities the opportunity to insert more control infrastructure into their networks' gateways to the wider world. It is known that Google, Cisco etc. have been working with the governments (whether you consider it being strong-armed or not) to help in restricting access to certain sites etc. What happens when (my understanding is getting a bit flaky here, since I don't like working with IPv6) the v6-v4 gateways become points where the governments of the world can put a finger into, for good or ill? Still plenty of countries in the world where the general man on the street has no say as to what form of government they have (and what with the Florida fiasco + Supreme Court intervention in the US, the US isn't all that great a poster-boy for democracy either).
Re:Those who do not learn from history.... by dvdeug · 2003-05-29 12:33 · Score: 1

Build your own addressing, implement it, and enough with the complaining about how the USA chooses to do its business!

Imagine a system where the US and the rest of the world used different Internet systems. Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? It's not like Americans needed to hear about Linux until someone could snailmail a copy in. And instead of having one kernel project and one Debian, we could have one American and one overseas, because there's no way they could communicate. And the American branches of IBM and Sun and Microsoft and every other international corporation could build their own private subnets over the multiple subsystems, which would be faster and easier to debug then just having one Internet.

Back in real life, everyone works together on stuff like this (except for assholes who can profit because of confusion) because it's a pain in the ass if you don't. Kludging up every system in the world because of some jingoist, proprietary attitude just adds pain and misery to the world.

I have a /16 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:48 · Score: 0

I have a /16, and I'm using it internally! It was like this when I started here, not my fault. I've tried convincing them to switch, but no one cares except for me. The only way to get us to switch would be to have ARIN take it away, which would be fine with me.

Re:I have a /16 by Taurim · 2003-05-28 10:30 · Score: 1

Same thing in my company. We have a public /16 since the beginning of 1990 but it's totally useless as it's only used internally and we have no incoming trafic from the internet to this net. All the communication to the outside goes through several servers in a DMZ.

Re:huh? by deadsaijinx* · 2003-05-28 08:49 · Score: 1

no dude, asia is a porno star...
as an interesting side note Asia Carrera ( you all know who i'm talking about ) wrote an article for MaximumPC. ends up porno stars can be geeks too.

--
YOU SUCK BALLS!

They're not running out - .cn spammers have plenty by inicom · 2003-05-28 08:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic

They're not running out - I think every spammer in hk, tw, kr and especially cn has been given a class A to scatter their mailhosts around. Reclaim all of the spammers addresses and they'll have enough for a few more years.

--
-a.e.mossberg

Nit-Pick by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 08:50 · Score: 1, Informative

A Class D address is in the 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255 range, and is reserved for multicasts only. Lao Po in Beijing will have to get IPs from the Class A, B, or C ranges.

I don't know why? by Dugsmyname · 2003-05-28 08:51 · Score: 1

I use 192.168.0.1 on quite a few of my machines... So I'm not wasting IP addresses, I'm reusing them.

Poor attempt at humor.

Some Math by c0dedude · 2003-05-28 08:57 · Score: 1

Ok, assuming that 10 class A adresses are gone for LANs and such, there are 244*254*254*254=4,014,830,680 IPs availible. Ignoring servers and assuming everyone (from newborns to old people) needed a unique IP, we would be 6,338,915,000 people- 4,014,830,680 IPs =2,324,084,320 IPs short. I'd say that's a slight problem, if a goal really is to "wire the world".

--
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?

Re:Some Math by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:14 · Score: 0

Yeah, but with NAT, you can radically increase your number. In fact, if done right, you could probably square it.
So no real problem in the addressing scheme. The problem is in the assignments of IP addresses.
and who said the goal was to wire the world? I think we should go wireless! =)
Re:Some Math by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:32 · Score: 0

Your balls + My Face = Good Times

Re:IANA by tomhudson · 2003-05-28 08:58 · Score: 2, Informative

IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.

But it does work with IANAPDN -Public Data Network, etc. Hadn't noticed that.

just take IP addresses from asian spammers by frankie · 2003-05-28 09:01 · Score: 1

If each police state in Asia would just execute 10% of their spammers and confiscate the computers, there would be plenty of addresses for the next decade at least.

It would be so nice...

Are you sure? by dark-br · 2003-05-28 09:02 · Score: 3, Funny

IPv6 will not run out of addresses

Hum... till ppl start assigning one ip address per fridge, cooker, toaster, air cond., etc...

My fridge will have one for each drawer so i can have a shell script to check for lack of booze and order more online :)

Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:12 · Score: 0

Then you can tell your spouse that you could replace them with a very small shell script.
Re:Are you sure? by swillden · 2003-05-28 09:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hum... till ppl start assigning one ip address per fridge, cooker, toaster, air cond., etc...
Umm... no.
2^128 addresses means that every one of the 7 billion people on the planet can have 48,611,766,702,991,209,066,196,372,490 addresses of their very own.
That's a lot of appliances.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Are you sure? by dark-br · 2003-05-28 09:34 · Score: 1

Think of nanobots building stuff each one with his own ip address... Would ipv6 handle that?
Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:17 · Score: 0

I think this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who in their right mind would be that many "nanobots" on the internet -- are they all going to have their own web server? Are you going to write that many webpages? Think private network...
Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:27 · Score: 0

Well, lets NAT those little buggers then. They can grow in their own 192.168.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.... network.
Re:Are you sure? by dark-br · 2003-05-28 11:44 · Score: 1

I was talking about nanotech dude :)
Re:Are you sure? by jonearth · 2003-05-28 18:56 · Score: 1

Hum... till ppl start assigning one ip address per fridge, cooker, toaster, air cond., etc...

Umm... no.

2^128 addresses means that every one of the 7 billion people on the planet can have 48,611,766,702,991,209,066,196,372,490 addresses of their very own.

That's a lot of appliances.

Maybe when cyberborg appears, we will assign ip to every human cells. that time it may not be enough.
Re:Are you sure? by Nipok+Nek · 2003-05-29 02:36 · Score: 1

There are (approximatly) 8 Billion Billion Billion Atoms in an adult human being. That's (I hope I get this right...) 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. So each atom gets 6 addresses. Including the ones I just rinsed down the drain.

Wait, maybe I should reclaim those addresses. We'll need some kind of monitor in the plumbing :)

--
Why choose white shoes?
Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 08:10 · Score: 0

If i had a penny for every IP address...
Re:Are you sure? by swillden · 2003-05-31 19:05 · Score: 1

Think of nanobots building stuff each one with his own ip address... Would ipv6 handle that?
Short answer: Yes.
For a more detailed answer, do the math yourself. It's easy.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

one IP per spammer by pair-a-noyd · 2003-05-28 09:03 · Score: 1

Those people shouldn't be allowed near computers.
Where the hell is a communist soldier/policeman when you need one???

Oooo, those evil capitalists! by chiph · 2003-05-28 09:08 · Score: 1

The U.S. and Europe are sitting pretty for now, because these regions grabbed most IP addresses. The Americans, for example, own 70 percent of all addresses, she said.

Grabbed? We invented it.

But seriously, upgrading to IPv6 is the answer, so I don't understand the fuss. If TimeWarner did IPv6 I'd start using it at home to be a good net citizen.

Chip H.

Re:Oooo, those evil capitalists! by mgs1000 · 2003-05-28 09:18 · Score: 1

Yes, it should say that the U.S. donated 30% of it's IP addresses to other countries. :)
Re:Oooo, those evil capitalists! by Andrewkov · 2003-05-28 12:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, I guess we now know how Al Gore feels about Asia...

Greed is why we are short on addresses by Halvard · 2003-05-28 09:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yep, plain and simple. Why else would IBM and Harvard each still have a couple of class A's or somesuch. Inertia? Sure they were around early in the days of arpanet or near.net or fsf.net, etc., but they don't need that many addresses. Really, both could get away with private addresses on approximately (I'm making this number up arbitrarily) 90& of their networks and probably more. MIT's up there for address space as well.

Someone is going to chime in with I'm clearly wrong, not in an enterprise environment, or some such. Well I own and run an ISP. We light office buildings, no one has a public IP (well, some have static NAT'd addresses) so we can get away with using a fraction of the IP addresses we normally need. We are living proof that the number of addresses required really is a fraction of what most organizations use.

No one likes losing addresses from their netblock assignment. However, there is a greater good here. The technological haves or early adopters have grossly disproportionate assignments. Large numbers of organizations switching over to RFC 1918 blocks and NATing would solve much of the address shortage. It would have a side benefit of additional security as well.

Re:Greed is why we are short on addresses by Alomex · 2003-05-28 09:41 · Score: 1

Why else would IBM and Harvard each still have a couple of class A's or somesuch. Inertia?

There is no longer such a thing as a class A... I know of organizations that used to own class A spaces and were ordered to "cough up" holes in the class for others to use.
Re:Greed is why we are short on addresses by dissy · 2003-05-28 11:30 · Score: 1

> Why else would IBM and Harvard each still have a couple of class A's or somesuch.

Maybe cuz they helped build the thing, and asia didnt?

> No one likes losing addresses from their netblock assignment. However, there is a
> greater good here. The technological haves or early adopters have grossly
> disproportionate assignments.

So, you pay for a house, and spend time fixing that house up to be the way you want it, but if you are one person with a house and there are 10 homeless familys outside, using your logic, the fact you paid for and put your own work into that hosue for you is totally irrelevant, you should be forced to share?

Maybe if asia had something to contribute or help with back in the day, they would have been given the IPs needed to do their work improving the internet.
Unfortunatly that isnt what happened.
MIT however played a HUGE role in the development of the internet, and during that time im sure they did need those IPs.

Why doesnt asia convince IANA to allocate some of the unused IP space to them, instead of trying to bully space away from people that actually made the internet able to exist as it is today?
Re:Greed is why we are short on addresses by Halvard · 2003-05-28 15:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, you pay for a house, and spend time fixing that house up to be the way you want it, but if you are one person with a house and there are 10 homeless familys outside, using your logic, the fact you paid for and put your own work into that hosue for you is totally irrelevant, you should be forced to share?

I think this is more akin to White colonial powers in Africa than buying a house. Seems to me it time for some land redistribution.

Maybe if asia had something to contribute or help with back in the day, they would have been given the IPs needed to do their work improving the internet. Unfortunatly that isnt what happened.

Of course, it largely was funded by the US government (they still pony up a chunk to run it today I know). But those days are over. It's a distributed system that now is used by people all over the world, with network portions owned by organizations all over the world.

Why doesnt asia convince IANA to allocate some of the unused IP space to them, instead of trying to bully space away from people that actually made the internet able to exist as it is today?

You don't own your netblock and neither do the organizations that were involved early on. There's power in inertia but that object is still moveable.

I think this is more akin to the US continuing to control things just like with naming and ICANN and all the secrecy. I'll leave bringing up previous ICANN related rants by others to the reader.
Re:Greed is why we are short on addresses by sgtrock · 2003-05-29 02:35 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. While the concept of RFC1918 is OK, it doesn't take care of a fairly common situation; the merger, acquisition, or splitting of organizations.

Any time this kind of event occurs, the first thing that the network geeks have to do is establish an internal NAT boundary as a stopgap while they sort out how they will re-address the two networks as one big 10.x.x.x network. After months of planning and political wrangling, the actual work starts. For big organizations that are spread all over the place, completing the transition can easily take up to 2 years. Just about the time the net geeks are completing their task, another major re-org is announced and they have to start over again.

I've been through this exercise at a mid-sized company (~1,800 employees) and a large one (started at 14,000, now at 55,000+). In both cases I was faced with this hassle several times.

It was actually easier at the smaller company because they primarily targeted smaller acquisitions. We could generally just go in and re-assign stuff to meet our design. This was still a time consuming exercise that we would just as soon avoided if we could.

The larger company has generally aimed for a mix of smaller acquisitions punctuated by "merger of equals". I've lived through 2 of the latter. The headaches of re-addressing the new, combined network has proven to be a painful, drawn out process in that type of network redesign.

BTW, we're now looking at having to split off one division as an autonomous outfit with their own NOC and datacenter. While most of their subnet assignments happen to fall into a couple of contiguous ranges, there are a couple that are going to have to be re-assigned before they are separated from the corporate environment. Again, not much fun. Having to deal with duplicated addresses and subnets means we'll be back to an internal NAT gateway before we're done. :(

I'm half tempted to recommend a move to a hybrid IPv6 IPv4 network just so at least part of our work won't have to be redone when the next inevitable acquistion is announced.

Nope, NAT sucks. As far as I'm concerned it's a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.
Re:Greed is why we are short on addresses by dvdeug · 2003-05-29 12:41 · Score: 1

No one likes losing addresses from their netblock assignment.

As other people point out, once you're using that space, even very sparsely, it's a pain to fix that. Rather go to IPv6 then try and wrestle some scraps from people who are already using them.
Re:Greed is why we are short on addresses by Halvard · 2003-05-29 15:25 · Score: 1

If we can ever get vendors to actually support it an any useful fashion and networks to really implement it.

In other words, shortsighted... by SuperKendall · 2003-05-28 09:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

considering the size of our galaxy.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

here is the answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:15 · Score: 0

ipv4 is 4 billion IP's.

There is no where near that many IP's on the internet. Most large companies have proxies > layer 3, which means that you (or whoever my company interacts with) never see my computers IP address..

I'm thinking that conservatively, we could replace our 3 class b's with 50 or so class c's, returning 180000 ip addresses to the pool...

if anyone thinks that we need ipv6 on the internet, they are nuts... let the telco's work on it with the vendors.. it's better for us anyway.. if the internet goes ipv6, then ms becomes the predominant stack, and we will have to work around whatever bugs are in their stack.. as it stands, now the linux/*bsd/cisco/nortel ipv6 implementations are improving, and I haven't heard of them haven't to work around eachothers bugs (since it's so pre-release, they get the bugs fixed)..

thanks

Evil Bit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:17 · Score: 0

The real question is then, will the evil bit be implemented in IPv6? Until then we MUST continue on with v4

SPAMMERS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:18 · Score: 0

Just let it be one IPV6 address range for the whole country, so our inevitable firewall blocking rules are simple to write. Thanks.

Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by FallLine · 2003-05-28 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fact is that the market penetration of PCs is China is less than 1%. That means that, in all likelyhood, less than 1M people even have the ability to use an IP concurrently (presuming 100% connectivity). The United States, for comparison's sake, has at least 50% market penetration in PCs and as many internet users (roughly 150m US citizens). Not to mention the HUGE disparities in even the most fundamental utilities like fixed-phone lines and power. Did you know that less than 12% of China has a fixed phoneline in the house? Contrast this with the United States that has roughly 99% of houses wired. China simply has VASTLY less ability to consume IP addresses. In fact, I would be SHOCKED if they're even using 1/2 of their current allocation. This isn't even mentioning US industry, academia, households with more than 1 computer, wireless data, and so on that is very substantial in the US. China may have a much bigger raw population count, but their wired population is certainly much smaller (especially if you look at real regularity as opposed to China's official stats) because most of them are poor, lack basic power, sanation, phone, etc. Please think before you speak. Thank you.

Oh btw, a couple links:

http://www.eb-asia.com/EBA/issues/0009/0009trend s. htm

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/docu me nts/apcity/unpan001523.pdf

I'd love to some facts to backup your claim of 45.8m internet users in China (besides the usually inflated official stats that come out of their government)

Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by GlassHeart · 2003-05-28 10:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Please think before you speak. Thank you.
Please try to be polite, mainly because you could be wrong, but also if you're right.
Your fundamental mistake is thinking of China as a single country, and pretending that the percentages makes sense. You think that "12% phone penetration" means that ten people share one phone, which is completely wrong. The fact is probably that 10 of the 12% are owned by 5% of the people, and the 2% left are owned by 95% of the people. (I made up the actual numbers as an example.)
That is, it's infinitely more useful to think of China as two countries: one with a population of 65 million and two phones each, and another with a population of 1.2 billion and very few phones. The needs of "China One" are very different from the needs of "China Two".
Coming back specifically to this issue, the question is how we figure the demand per Internet user for an IP address. This involves direct needs (equipment owned by the user) and indirect needs (servers that were built to satisfy this user). All in all, the US now consumes some 3 billion IP addresses with about 160 million users, and "China One" consumes 22 million IP addresses with about 40 million users.
The ratio here is off by about 30x. That is, on average, US Internet users require 30x more IP addresses than a Chinese Internet user. The challenge here is to explain the discrepancy, and to determine if the US is wasteful. Beyond the population, there's also the question of "how much Internet" the user consumes. Somebody who just uses email obviously has a smaller need than somebody who downloads Linux ISOs.
Your task, should you wish to defend the discrepancy, is to show that "China One" really doesn't need that many IPs, rather than diluting the needs of "China One" with the sheer numbers of "China Two".
I'd love to some facts to backup your claim of 45.8m internet users in China
CIA World Factbook. It's probably your responsibility if they're lying again. :)
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by grimani · 2003-05-28 11:22 · Score: 1

You're ignoring the popularity of internet cafes in Asia.

A sizeable chunk of users don't own their own computer/internet gig. Price of course holds them back, but the lack of IPs probably would too.
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by FallLine · 2003-05-28 11:44 · Score: 1

Nonsense. The logic of my argument is obvious and inescapable. Regardless of the number of people in China or the number of people who can claim to have used the internet one time or more, very few in China can use the internet concurrently because of the lack of PCs, phones, and so on. In other words, when there are only 10m PCs in the entire country, no matter how many people are assigned to each computer, that does not mean that each computer needs more than 1 IP. Given standard PC technology, it is very reasonable to assume a 1 to 1 relationship with PCs and is probably even generous (many are likely not networked). China simply does not have nearly as many PCs. Given that there are probably no more than, say, 10m PCs in all of China, please tell me why they need more than 2x as many IPs. In fact, please go further and show me actual proof that China, not the rest of Asia, is actually having a problem--that it's not just a combination of journalistic laziness and bad extropolation. Even if you allow a little wiggleroom for wireless in China and some growth, they clearly are not nearly as wired as the United States is. They have clearly have not be using the internet as long. They clearly do not have the demand. There is no conspiracy here; move on.

CIA World Factbook. It's probably your responsibility if they're lying again. :)
Prove it. I think you mis-googled. If you read your probable reference page carefully (http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geogra phics/article/0,1323,5911_151151,00.html) you will note that they are referring to a Neilsen's telephone survey not the CIA. I cannot attest to the specifics of the survey, but from my reading of it it sounds like they surveyed a mere 1000 Chinese telephone answers and based on that number they extropolated something. This is hardly going to be an accurate methodology regardless of their particular methods and particularly if they assumed that telephone usage was even 1/5 of what it is in the US, i.e., they largely surveyed China One, but stretched it across the entire population. In any event though, even if they have 50m internet users, it doesn't mean there is a problem.

At some point, I think it is quite likely that China will have far greater concurrent access; but the combination of NAT and IPv6 can adequately handle it before it becomes a problem. The US is far more likely to see short-term growth in the consumption of IPs than China is with the growth of broadband, wireless devices (i.e., PDAs), networked appliances, and so on. We also have a much more distributed system of ISPs and such (e.g., thousands of ISPs all who want room to grow), which makes it much more difficult to allocate IPs efficiently in comparison to the monothilic entities that you're going to see in a more nationalized China.
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by geekoid · 2003-05-28 11:54 · Score: 1

I would li to point out that we may have 160 million users, many of those users consume at least 2 ip.
sometime more.
One for home, one for work. Actually, I have my desk machine, a test machine, and a qa machine.

Even proplr who don't work directly with PC's may consume one. Perhaps a fast food place has one for each register? Or a wirless conection for surveyers.

so I think it should be the number of wired devices that should be looked at to determin if there is an IP desparity.

One more thing. The US was first to capitalize on the internet, so it is natural that we would have more. If China capitalized on it 10 years before we did, I would expect them to have more.
proper deligation of IPv6 will make this issue moot.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by geekoid · 2003-05-28 12:03 · Score: 1

sure, but you only need to look at how many computers they have, not how many users. You don't need an IP per user, just per computer.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by GlassHeart · 2003-05-28 12:46 · Score: 1

I would li to point out that we may have 160 million users, many of those users consume at least 2 ip. sometime more. One for home, one for work. Actually, I have my desk machine, a test machine, and a qa machine.
Many of those 160 million, perhaps most of them, use less than 1 at home. The majority of that 160 million are still using dial-up, and are probably sharing a pool of IP addresses when the connect. Many broadband users don't have static IPs either.
Even proplr who don't work directly with PC's may consume one. Perhaps a fast food place has one for each register?
We're talking about public IP addresses here. Cash registers are unlikely to be connected to the Internet, even if they are IP based.
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by GlassHeart · 2003-05-28 13:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Given that there are probably no more than, say, 10m PCs in all of China, please tell me why they need more than 2x as many IPs.
Try not to say "nonsense" and "inescapable logic" right before you start guessing.
This article states that PC sales exceeded 10.1 million units in 2002 alone. Assuming that people keep their PCs for 3 years (which is not unreasonable for a poorer country where a PC is a major investment), we should be talking about a population of over 20 million PCs. Even that conservative estimate is already twice your guess. In fact, if you believe this article, China overtook Japan as the second biggest PC market in the world last year.
Prove it. I think you mis-googled.
The CIA World Factbook China page, under "Communications", says "Internet Users: 45.8 million (2002)".
In any event though, even if they have 50m internet users, it doesn't mean there is a problem.
The trouble with Slashdot, and in particular with folks of "inescapable logic", is that you don't actually read. Where did I ever say there was a problem? I was answering somebody's question as to how many people in China can read or write, or have ever seen a computer, relative to the US. Later, I was correcting your apparent mental block with the low percentages of users from China.
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by FallLine · 2003-05-28 13:55 · Score: 1

This article [news.com.au] states that PC sales exceeded 10.1 million units in 2002 alone. Assuming that people keep their PCs for 3 years (which is not unreasonable for a poorer country where a PC is a major investment), we should be talking about a population of over 20 million PCs. Even that conservative estimate is already twice your guess. In fact, if you believe this article [bbc.co.uk], China overtook Japan as the second biggest PC market in the world last year.
That stat came from China's state-run news agency which has been documented to inflate figures hundreds of times and even out right lie. Please get another source. Furthermore, do not confuse current market share of NEW computers with the installed base of PCs as a whole. It is quite possible for China to have much millions more NEW sales than Japan because of their economic growth and still have fewer installed computers at the end of the year or even 5 years. Japan is a highly developed country, but they're economically stagnating. What's more, my "guess" is hardly a guess, it's a pretty reliable approximation given more reliable statistics. When, at last count, less than 1% of households have PCs and few people are likely to be able to afford or use multiple computers; it's basic math and a tiny amount of extropolation.

The trouble with Slashdot, and in particular with folks of "inescapable logic", is that you don't actually read. Where did I ever say there was a problem? I was answering somebody's question as to how many people in China can read or write, or have ever seen a computer, relative to the US. Later, I was correcting your apparent mental block with the low percentages of users from China.
If you wish to be technical, then I didn't say you had a problem either. However, your meaning came across quite clearly on my end because of your insistance that the apparent disparity needs to be justified somehow. You were clearly suggesting China One was being set back somehow. If there is no problem, then there is no need to justify it, period, especially when the many entities in the US are known to be running low on free IP blocks in practice.
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:56 · Score: 0

Reading this thread was funny, till I got to this last post of yours and burst out laughing.

"That stat came from China's state-run news agency which has been documented to inflate figures hundreds of times and even out right lie. Please get another source"

I like that.. YOUR information is, of course, 100% accurate, while his information (which you requested he document), is obviously an inflated and outright lie.

Great argument! Haha! Everyone who is reading this now recognizes you for the blinded fool you are and have probably added you to their foes list.
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense by GlassHeart · 2003-05-29 04:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

That stat came from China's state-run news agency which has been documented to inflate figures hundreds of times and even out right lie. Please get another source.
Sure. This quotes the IDC as expecting "China's PC sales to nearly double in a few years, from 11.3 million in 2002 to 21.1 million in 2006." Note that IDC's estimates are even higher than Xinhua's.
Furthermore, do not confuse current market share of NEW computers with the installed base of PCs as a whole.
Who's showing signs of confusion? I estimated conservatively (assuming people keep computers for 3 years), that there are 20 million PCs in use in China, based on sales figures in 2002. I further quoted that China now has the second largest PC market, which is not the same as installed base.
It is quite possible for China to have much millions more NEW sales than Japan because of their economic growth and still have fewer installed computers at the end of the year or even 5 years.
That's actually less likely. Poor countries are likely to hang on to PCs longer than rich countries. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a good number of 5-year old computers in use in China.
When, at last count, less than 1% of households have PCs and few people are likely to be able to afford or use multiple computers; it's basic math and a tiny amount of extropolation.
Your 1% figure is simply inaccurate. The 10.1 or 11.3 million PCs sold in 2002 already account for the 1%, and that's assuming nobody in this third world country throw away their computer after one year.
However, your meaning came across quite clearly on my end because of your insistance that the apparent disparity needs to be justified somehow.
Try to understand that some people don't give a damn one way or the other, except that people are arguing the right topics (in this case, actual users versus percentage of population), and are using the right numbers to back up their arguments.

Easy solution... by SClitheroe · 2003-05-28 09:19 · Score: 1

Go back to NetBIOS...everyone loves broadcast traffic, right??

Another sign of rock and roll excesses by c13v3rm0nk3y · 2003-05-28 09:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Asia Running Out Of IP Addresses

What the hell is a prog-rock super-band from the 80's doing with 22 million IP addresses?

Do they give them away to groupies with the backstage passes? Did entire blocks come free with the purchase of an lp? Were they traded for drugs and amps that go up to "11"?

This kind of rock n' roll excess is just so sad.

--
-- clvrmnky

IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by Skapare · 2003-05-28 09:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

IPv6 is fundamentally broken. The routing system for it does not scale to the same level the address space does. There are enough addresses for everyone to have their own portable /64 assignment (if not larger), but IPv6 can't handle the routing. The routing technology was not improved to scale up, even though it could have been done (although I don't know if it can be done with the way IPv6 was designed). But that's not a valid excuse for not having scalable routing as the IP layer structure could have been designed to allow for it. Wedging another layer in below IP for IPv6 might also work, but I think we would be better off waiting for a clean re-design, perhaps to be called IPv7 (and pushing them to hurry up with it).

If you don't believe me, just post a call for portable address assignments in IPv6 for everyone. You're get plenty of responses saying that the routing can't handle it. And that is the problem.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by amorsen · 2003-05-28 10:12 · Score: 1

Why do you want your addresses to be portable? Renumbering IPv6 is trivial. It is not like I remember the addresses anyway.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:51 · Score: 1

Changing the address in the LAN router is not the only issue. For example you have to list your server IP addresses (not just domain name) for domains that your DNS server serves ... the GTLD and other DNS servers can't pick up on that. And the bigger issue is multi-homed connectivity. You have to announce a full portable address prefix for that to work, and thus you have to have one first.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by amorsen · 2003-05-28 11:08 · Score: 1

Right, your DNS servers need fixed IP's. However, you should not be running your DNS servers in your own address space anyway, since they die if you lose connectivity. And multihoming is no fix for that; your AS might get misrouted somewhere. Multihoming cannot fix that.
Multihoming in IPv6 should be done simply by running two (or however many) sets of addresses in parallel. The applications should do the failover. Keep the end points smart, the network stupid.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by Skapare · 2003-05-28 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I certainly don't want to run my DNS server's in someone else's address space. That space could die, too. If I host with someone else, what's to prevent their AS from being misrouted, and all their multi-homed connections to become useless? You can't run DNS on more IP addresses than you can put in the NS and A records, so the parallel multiple address methods are not workable. Instead, IPv6 just needs a decent highly scalable routing system that, unlike BGP, does follow the principle of keeping the end points smart and the network stupid.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by amorsen · 2003-05-28 20:39 · Score: 1

You place your DNS service in multiple places, of course. Should one of the providers get misrouted, no problem. I do not understand what you mean by running DNS on more IP addresses than you put in the NS and A records. Plain old DNS allows for about 13 NS records before you start hitting UDP packet limits. (More will work, but you really want to avoid DNS-over-TCP.) Still, if 13 different providers all over the world are down at the same time, I think you can safely consider the Internet dead.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by Skapare · 2003-05-29 01:07 · Score: 1

Regardless of whether the DNS servers are in the ISP's own facility, or if the ISP provides a circuit to me to run the DNS servers at my place, I still want the DNS servers to be able to be switched to another ISP without having to hassle with the domain registration people to get HOST records properly updated (they almost always goof it up). With a portable address space, I have control.

I do understand I can do lots of stuff without a portable address space. But I have no need for IPv6 right now. However, bribe me with IPv6 address space which I can keep forever and never have to change it, and I'll jump on the bandwagon right then. If not, then I will do what everyone else is doing, which is wait until enough others are unreachable via IPv4 to make it worthwhile.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by davew · 2003-05-29 01:23 · Score: 1

I'm curious to know how you'd rewrite IP in order to subsume the routing problem and still have it be IP. Got any proposals we could read? The only ways I can imagine to do that are less like IP and more like ATM or stuff like that, which is interesting and useful, but probably not a viable replacement for IPv4.
Re:IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 by Skapare · 2003-05-29 10:19 · Score: 1

The philosophy of TCP/IP has been dumb networks and smart end points. I'd take that just a bit further. Networks are not as dumb as they seem. Routing tables represent a lot of smarts. RIP is fairly dumb. OSPF and BGP are smarter. But the one factor that doesn't scale is keeping routes in routing tables. Instead, what is needed is a way to route w/o that table. My design would work by having a route discovery protocol that lets the end points figure out the path to take in terms of a series of interface indexes. Details would be rather complex because of the need to have security integrated into it as well. But it would end up being something like source routing where the packet would contain the path it is to take and would form a reverse path for the peer to use (this is where the security is important). Instead of the path hops being described in terms of IP address, the routers involved would assign a fixed set of indexes to each interface they can route over. These indexes would be encoded like UTF-8 so for most routers only one byte is needed per hop, but the capacity exists for a router to have 2 billion interfaces. The critical part would be the route lookup. This would be done at all AS border routers not unlike BGP, but instead of holding all the routes, the routers would merely consult a routing database which may not even be in the same AS. Since these consultations would not be for every packet (only for route discovery probes), the database would not have a huge load. For performance the router can cache some routing data (I'm of the opinion that all data stored in a router should be of a cached nature, guided by a database somewhere that knows more). The ultimate caching would be stored in the end points. The route determinations would be exchanged through the consulation databases. They would build up route information not unlike BGP, except that they would not have to flush routes when an interface goes down. One requirement would be that each assigned network would also have an authenticity certificate the databases would verify. The IP packet would have to carry the actual address, the source routing path, and an index to a signed hash stored in the databases of the endpoint AS for verification (the index serves to speed up finding the route authenticity record). The end point routers would cache that certificate with the address and reverse path that created the hash. Initial verification would involve actually generating the hash and encrypting it, but subsequently, as long as the path remains the same and the data remains in cache, it only needs to be compared (so encryption work is not on a per packet basis in the router). But the path can change, or the cache entry can be discarded, and it would only need to reverify (and the database CPU may really be doing that work, anyway). Within an AS, routing could be a more conventional approach, such as an OSPF like protocol.

IPv6 doesn't have the means to add this on.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:29 · Score: 0

can geeks be porno stars?

Create an incentive for IPv6 by Skapare · 2003-05-28 09:38 · Score: 1

Create an incentive for IPv6. It's simple. Start making permanent portable IPv6 address assignments to anyone willing to actually deploy IPv6 quickly. The rules could be that whoever receives the assignment must have their network configured for IPv6, and their principle servers responding to IPv6 addresses, within 6 months, and must shut off IPv4 on a common cutover date which will be not earlier than 12 months after the first date these assignments are available, and will be announced specifically with a 6 month lead time. Anyone who fails to complete those steps on deadline loses their permanent assignment and then has to qualify for an assignment under the usual rules and get all new addresses. If that won't get ISPs and other networks to move forward, then I'd say IPv6 is dead and we should move on to IPv7 and really do it right.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

But China only need one IP Address by sneakybilly · 2003-05-28 09:39 · Score: 1

Beats me why China want more than one IP Address. Everything is behind a router anyways.

This is such a horrible joke to make...... by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-05-28 09:42 · Score: 1

But don't worry, once SARS has run its course....they'll need significantly fewer IPs. God I'm going to hell for that one....

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:This is such a horrible joke to make...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:51 · Score: 0

Hey! That's a nice thought.
Let's hope it comes true!!!

There are dozens of Class A blocks left! by b1t+r0t · 2003-05-28 09:43 · Score: 1

Everything from 70 through 126 is still unassigned. That's over 50 blocks, with 16 million addresses each! And China is only using up two class A blocks right now! The best part is that (due to clueless administrators), they're already pre-blocked! (Some admins block this range because they're "not assigned", and never notice when they do get assigned. One of them recently did get assigned, and apparently this was a real big problem.)

The real problem is keeping the routing table size in control, which is why you need big blocks assigned by geographical area, rather than the old way, which was a bunch of random class B and C blocks assigned in sequential order with no regard to routing issues.

--

--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft

Re:IPv6? Yes because NAT is too limited by Skapare · 2003-05-28 09:43 · Score: 3, Funny

If your company thinks NAT is too limited, then it should have gotten, or be getting, its own IPv6 assignment. Cite the address. If it's a case of your management not understanding the problem and the solution, give me your CEO's home phone number and I'll given him a call at 3AM and whisper into his ear "IPv6 ... IPv6 ... you want IPv6 ... IPv6 will make your network better, faster, cheaper ... IPv6 ... do IPv6 now".

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

solution for the world by cr@ckwhore · 2003-05-28 09:44 · Score: 1

Here's what we should do ... give china ONE ipv4 address and NAT the entire country. That solves their problem. It also frees up 21,999,999 IP addresses for the rest of the address starved world. This will also solve the SPAM problem ... one iptables entry will fix that.

Sounds like a good idea to me... anyone else agree?

--
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com

Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:44 · Score: 0

NOW where are we going to run our open relays from?

Or how about common sence? by Dead_B0b · 2003-05-28 09:46 · Score: 1

Does everthing under gods green earth need publically accesable IP's? Better routing would fix that. shiesh.

Asia running out of IPs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:48 · Score: 0

This might do alot to reduce spam growth. All that seems to come from the orient on the internet is a virus attempt or spam.

Except for my Ausie frends, I block all their assigned netblocks...

32 bits... by dapuk · 2003-05-28 09:49 · Score: 0

... ought to be enough for anyone.

You left one out: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 09:49 · Score: 0

034/8 Mar 93 Halliburton Company

This is ridiculous. IBM and AT&T I can maybe see, but Halliburton? Every time I think that that nest of vipers couldn't be more in bed with the government, something like this comes up. Of course, not every corporation is lucky enough to have a former Secretary of Defense and future Vice President on their Board of Directors. Sure, the ordinary people are running out of IP addresses, but you ought to sleep better at night knowing that we could assign 256 addresses to each one of Cheney's oil rigs.

Re:You left one out: by tomhudson · 2003-05-28 09:53 · Score: 1

Actually, I left a bunch out, didn't want to make the post overly-long, but I get your point, that one is particularly egregious.

IPv6 has ALREADY run out of ... by Skapare · 2003-05-28 09:53 · Score: 1

IPv6 has already run out of available permanent address prefixes for routing. That's because it's routing infrastructure is broken.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

child labour? by Piranhaa · 2003-05-28 09:56 · Score: 1

Would all their child labour help to make more? :P

My Obligatory Quote by Myuu · 2003-05-28 09:56 · Score: 1

"The US will convert to IP v.6 just as soon as it converts to metric."

--

forget it.

Donate your IP addresses to poor Chinese children by ENOENT · 2003-05-28 09:58 · Score: 1

I'll start off this pledge drive by donating 127.0.0.1 to the cause. Call in now, and I'll match you one-for-one with addresses pulled from the 10.0.0.0 network!

--
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.

Running out? Can't find solutions? Why not? by dance2die · 2003-05-28 09:59 · Score: 1

Have they heard of private IPs? It'd be a good idea that we fully utilize private IPs as much as possible until IPv6 gets supported by many routers... or computers.

--
buffering...

Make spam illegal on IPv6 by Skapare · 2003-05-28 10:00 · Score: 1

The DMA and many businesses want to spam everyone. But do they need more than a billion addresses? If all of these countries would pass laws requiring all spam (it's not spam if the actual owner of the mailbox that is signed up confirmed that they requested the mail) to only be transmitted by IPv4 (not outlawed ... just told to do it by IPv4) then I bet there would suddenly be a lot of interest in IPv6.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Re:How much by charon_on_acheron · 2003-05-28 10:04 · Score: 1

98.6???

What is that in Celcius?

Trollish, maybe, but not wrong. by RatBastard · 2003-05-28 10:13 · Score: 1

While the parent post might be trollish in wording, it's not alltogether wrong. May state governments use public addresses, too. It doesn't make any sense as the firewalls block outside access to everything but the public servers, so why bother giving every workstation and laser printer a public IP address? Add to that the frustration of not having available addresses for new equipment this can cause.

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.

OK, a thought here by dacarr · 2003-05-28 10:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everybody is saying that IPv6 is gonna solve world hunger (at least, as far as IP addresses goes). But here's the thing - has Microsoft adopted it, and accordingly made Windoze whatever compatible? Last I checked, this wasn't the case.

Yes, I know, IPv6 is backward compatible, but let's not confuse the higher-ups with the facts. Just hear me out, 'k?

Microsoft enters the picture for one good reason: they are still the leading provider of operating systems. Most people still run Windows, and if indeed Microsoft is not IPv6 ready, you're going to alienate most of the users on the 'net.

OK, fine, blab all you want about the merits of Suzie Luser not being able to send emails full of run-on sentences, punctuation errors!!!!, and speling and errors grammatically to suzielusersmom13498572349657@aol.com, but consider this - ISPs such as AOL, Earthlink, Speakeasy, SBC, etc., etc., ad nauseam accordingly won't move to IPv6 when their primary customer base is still stuck in IPv4. There's just no need to make the expenditure right now because it doesn't affect them right now.

--
This sig no verb.

Re:OK, a thought here by binarytoaster · 2003-05-28 20:33 · Score: 1

Actually, I remember hearing that a) XP (and perhaps 2k) have IPv6 support built in, you just have to enable it, and b) Server 2k3 has it enabled by default...

Just redistrubute the Guangdong IP addresses by tbase · 2003-05-28 10:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

They should just unplug China's Guangdong province from the rest of the Internet - that should buy Asia a few more IP Addresses', and the 'dongs can hack and spam themselves instead of the rest of us :-)

--

666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast

Re:Yes, but by deadsaijinx* · 2003-05-28 10:14 · Score: 1

no, it must be from porn star to geek

--
YOU SUCK BALLS!

International as early as 1973 by Fzz · 2003-05-28 10:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually it went international long before IP was even in use. University College London joined the ARPAnet back in 1973. TCP and IP were only standardized in 1978.

IPv6 will never happen by haruchai · 2003-05-28 10:15 · Score: 1

As was seen in The Matrix Reloaded, in the distant future we'll still be using ssh and RFC 1918 addresses. Long live IPv4!!

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Because they use 200 per mailserver by Jason+Straight · 2003-05-28 10:15 · Score: 1

That's because they use 200 per mailserver so they can get around spam IP filters.

The Matrix Reloaded... by AtomicX · 2003-05-28 10:29 · Score: 1

If IPv4 is still used hundreads of years from now when The Matrix Reloaded is set, Asia is going to have to be very patient. Still, maybe the computers simulate IPv6 inside the matrix and just use IPv4 in the real world or maybe... [aggh! this is doing my head in]

Re:The Matrix Reloaded... by Igmuth · 2003-05-28 12:44 · Score: 1

Except inside the matrix (where the scene in question took place) the time is now, or possibly closer to 2000.

Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:38 · Score: 1, Funny

Why not go to the root of the problem, the spam gangs who are responsible for 90% of the spam on the net?
Uh wait, that's in the US...

Don't be silly. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 10:40 · Score: 1, Informative

You're are probably right about the IP space being fine for the number of actual computers, but I wanted to respond to this point:

I'd love to some facts to backup your claim of 45.8m internet users in China

The CIA says 48.5 million users. I see no reason why they'd lie. The figure may be inflated a little, but it's probably ballpark accurate.

Your own link (first one) states 1% of China has a computer. That's ~10 million computers. But Hong Kong alone (technically part of China, listed separately in the stats on that link) has 7 million people - and 29% have computers in their household.

The abundance of (literally thousands) of internet cafes probably helps as well. People over there will certainly share access (ie: one PC per household of six / one PC at a cafe may have 8 different users a day) - but each person still counts towards being a user of the internet.

45.8 million internet users in China is not an unrealistic figure.

Also, note that China has an official Linux distribution: Red Flag Linux (english website | review). They also make their own CPU, the Dragon, a MIPS clone originally designed for the Chinese military.

strict requirements by Tancred · 2003-05-28 10:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

If any of you have been finding it a bit difficult to get space from ARIN, consider yourselves lucky. RIPE's tougher to get space from. And APNIC and JPNIC sometimes seem to guard their remaining IP space insanely. I hear about registries asking for receipts for all the supposed servers you've got installed as well as why you need so many. Sometimes they'll tour the facility to be sure you really need that large a netblock. This one's through the grapevine, but it's a usually reliable grapevine - one company was turned down and told to buy a certain type of hardware that would handle higher loads with fewer IP addresses.

It's a tough question - should early adopters with huge blocks of space be required to renumber (a very painful process) even though they're generally the ones that got the whole thing moving in the first place? Those early class A blocks don't even require annual payments. Go to an ARIN meeting sometime to hear some lively debate on that subject.

IPv6 is going to have to be pushed outside the U.S. None of the big backbones are rolling out anything substantial anytime soon. Nobody in the U.S. is feeling enough pain from IPv4 to need to do it. Besides, we'd really need some v6-optimized hardware too to get it going natively everywhere.

What's Stopping Them? by tjohns · 2003-05-28 10:47 · Score: 1

Companies will never switch over to IPv6 until they're either forced to, or it becomes more cost effective to upgrade than continuing to use their existing systems. Either way, the only way these goals can be achieved is if ISP's start offering IPv6 to their customers.

What I want to know is, what's stopping them from doing this? All they'd have to do is have a router set up so that users can still access IPv4 addresses, and they'd be set. Not only that, but it would save the ISP money, since they wouldn't have to buy as many IPv4 addresses, and they wouldn't have to reinvest in hardware in the future when they'd have to switch to IPv6 anyway. They could even use it as a marketing tool, guaranteeing every customer a static IP for every system they own. Heck, I know that they'd get a good portion of /. readers to sign up for that alone!

Quick and easy solution by Black+Copter+Control · 2003-05-28 10:55 · Score: 1

Take away all of the IP addresses assigned to spammers, and allocate them to REAL users.

One stone. Two birds.

--
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.

Re:Quick and easy solution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 19:06 · Score: 0

Woohoo! That would certainly cut down on the number of IP addresses assigned to the USA, origin of most of the spam, network scans, rude emails etc that we receive.

( ie, let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc etc)

China only needs one IP address... by zerofoo · 2003-05-28 11:00 · Score: 1

Doesn't the great firewall of China support NAT/PAT?

-ted

Why the hell.... by Col+Bat+Guano · 2003-05-28 11:01 · Score: 1

do they use comparisons ("fewer") when they don't compare
it to anything!

"The shrinking pool Asia's plight is especially dire because the region was assigned fewer addresses under the current IPv4 (version 4) scheme, drawn up over 20 years ago."

Grrrr!

Remembering numbers is hard by GunFodder · 2003-05-28 11:01 · Score: 1

I can't even remember 7 digit phone numbers, much less arbitrary IP addresses. That's what cut and paste is for. What this world needs is universal wireless cut and paste!

MODERATE PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:08 · Score: 0

-1, stating the obvious

223/8 by elbuddha · 2003-05-28 11:08 · Score: 1

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2003-03/m sg00535.html

Maybe APNIC shouldn't be so picky about its allocations, hm?

Re:223/8 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 19:10 · Score: 0

Or perhaps IANA should be more careful when handing out allocations.
The situation on 223/8 and its reservation was such that any RIR being allocated it would have done the same.

even more IPs on my blacklist/spamlist by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:09 · Score: 0

hey why give asia more IPs? just to feed my blacklist/spamlist?

jeezuz, id rather remove a few million ip addresses from their realm.

shut spammers down now!

All of Pakistan was under ONE IP address by mnmn · 2003-05-28 11:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Some time ago, PakNet was the biggest ISP in Pakistan serving hundereds of thousands under ONE ip address... interestingly using Linux kernel version 1.3.x. I also remember every user had a shell account from which we could cat the /etc/passwd, which was not surprisingly humungous. For a while, BrainNet and PakNet were the only ISPs in Pakistan, and later ISPs could only connect to Paknet, and their single monolithic IP address. I remembed always being banned from IRC servers which were blocking users by their IP addresses. Talk about one huge NAT and this is the biggest Muslim country in the world.

And on this side, here in Toronto, Bell assigns a subnet of 8 IPs to every customer, including ones who need just one. 3 of those IPs are gateway, broadcast and 00 host, which leaves 5 IPs. two of them are assigned to the on-site router and off-site routers which are connected via DSL. Its one of the best examples of IP address waste, while the Chinese crave a personal, their very own IP address!

Theoretically all of the more than 4 billon IP addresses can be used, and it is VERY unlikely that the whole worlds population would be online. But the imbalance remains with the US holdin on to all the Oil and IP addresses. At least we can do something about one of them.

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky

Re:All of Pakistan was under ONE IP address by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 01:53 · Score: 0

Nope, Indonesia is the biggest muslim nation in the world...

They Really Have Plenty by DaveAtFraud · 2003-05-28 11:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its just that most of them are blocked/DNS blacklisted because of all the spam that gets sent from them. From my sendmail access source file:

... cn.net REJECT cn.com REJECT com.cn REJECT net.cn REJECT fj.cn REJECT sina.com REJECT sh.cn REJECT ...

I gave up on specific senders. I'm guessing the spammers have run through quite a bit of the address block and that's why they're running out of addresses.

--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben

Re:They Really Have Plenty by valmont · 2003-05-28 13:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

please mod parent up ....

--
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Re:They Really Have Plenty by Kaiwen · 2003-05-28 16:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sheesh! This gets a +4 Insightful when it should be -1 Troll.
Tell me how you including a few Asian URLs in your blocked list has anything to do with the number of IP addresses in Asia, please. Strikes me like saying, "The telcos are running out of phone numbers. Want proof? Look at all the blocked names I've got in my Caller-ID box!"
The reason Asia is running out of IP addresses should be obvious to anyone what actually RTFA'd -- some short-sighted American git assigned a paltry 22 million IP addresses for a billion and a half people while hogging 70 percent of the rest for himself.
I had no problem accessing most of the URLs you mentioned. If you want a few hundred more working Asian URLs, let me know; I'll be happy to provide them.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
Re:They Really Have Plenty by vegetablespork · 2003-05-31 15:32 · Score: 1

I had no problem accessing most of the URLs you mentioned. If you want a few hundred more working Asian URLs, let me know; I'll be happy to provide them.
For my blocking purposes, a list of all address space served by APNIC will be sufficient. Thanks!

--
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

Re:IP v6 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:19 · Score: 0

Redudndant to what? Another MS shill moderator...git em in metamoderation boys!

we should firewall china by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:25 · Score: 0

make it so no smtp can be received from china but they can receive all our smtp. It would be like reversing the flow of the spam sewer ..

I dont see the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 11:41 · Score: 0

4,294,967,296 ought to be enough for anyone.

Sharing by Fuzzums · 2003-05-28 11:54 · Score: 1

somehow sharing isn't going to be an option i guess.

--
Privacy is terrorism.

Certified FUD by FunkyMarcus · 2003-05-28 11:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Fear.
Uncertainty.
Doubt.

The reality is that there's plenty of IPv4 space available and there will be for years to come. APNIC may be nearing the exhaustion of the address space currently assigned to that region of the world, but that doesn't mean that more space won't be assigned.

The Asia-Pacific region got additional IP address space in April 2003.
And February 2003.
And July 2002.
And December 2001, September 2001, and December 2000.
And so on.

And there's more space where that came from. Plenty of it. In fact, nearly half of IPv4's 32-bit address space is still up for grabs.

For more, see this and various other pages reachable by cutting-edge clickable links!

Mark

Re:I'm sure the chinese government has a plan by McAddress · 2003-05-28 11:57 · Score: 1

Quit with the racial slurs. I just think the Chinese people deserve a lot better than the chinese government.

Why do we keep going through this by thogard · 2003-05-28 12:12 · Score: 1

The problem with running out of addresses isn't a technological problem, its an admin problem. Right now because cisco is clueless with manageing route tables, a typical router can't cope with more than 10,000 or so entries so the solution to that problem was to fix the allocation so nothing smaller than a /19 was allocated. Most groups don't need a /19 so its all wasted. You can't dual home on todays network (with todays ISPs) without your own /19 so whats with all thouse companies that wan't to dual home but only need a /26? They are out of luck or they pay the big bucks to IANA and get their own /19.

Also if a cisco can't see the world as 16 million /24 then how is it ever going to cope with the the IP v6 address space which is 4 times bigger? However they solve that, they could solve the IP v4 routing problem.

Re:Why do we keep going through this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 14:30 · Score: 0

what the fuck are you babbling about?

route summarization : look it up

Class B fault by fm6 · 2003-05-28 12:25 · Score: 1

Not fair to blame the corporations. They adopted their addressing schemes back when people still believed in a completely open Internet, where everybody could open anybody's sockets. If they'd know what was coming, they would have used private networks from the very beginning -- and Class B networks probably wouldn't even exist.

Re:IANA by cyb3r0ptx · 2003-05-28 12:29 · Score: 1

Hmm... I always thought it stood for:
I Am Not Accountable

Then by geekoid · 2003-05-28 12:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

why are vendors being pressured by Asian companies to supply IPv6 compatibility with new products?

Why is MS pushing the IPv6 compatibility of there new operating systems so hard in China?

Most new applicable hardware supports both IPv4 and 6

Don't underestimate the forward and long term planning of the Chinese.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

No, not a troll. by fmaxwell · 2003-05-28 12:36 · Score: 1

The above was not a troll. It was what I truly believe. Don't like it? Then debate like a man instead of trying to hide what I say with negative moderation.

I'm experiancing this first hand in Tokyo.. by Large+Green+Mallard · 2003-05-28 12:38 · Score: 1

I'm currently in Tokyo, and the addresses being handed out to machines are non routable.. all of it is routed with NAT at the cable company..

The speeds are crap and there's lots of packet loss too :P

Re:I'm experiancing this first hand in Tokyo.. by CokeBear · 2003-05-28 18:41 · Score: 0, Troll

Hey LGM!
Whazzup? Haven't heard from you in a while!
What are you doing in Tokyo?

--
Reality has a liberal bias
Re:I'm experiancing this first hand in Tokyo.. by Large+Green+Mallard · 2003-05-29 13:40 · Score: 1

Eh, you know, same ole same ole ;)

Grab me on ICQ

NAT still useful by That_Dan_Guy · 2003-05-28 12:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

But you still have to admit NAT is useful in creating a poor man's firewall and helping to keep your private network private.

Re:NAT still useful by 3.1415926535 · 2003-05-28 13:35 · Score: 0, Flamebait

For about the fifty-billionth time, NAT is not the same as a firewall. While firewalls and NATs often go hand-in-hand, they are by no means equivalent.
Re:NAT still useful by Talez · 2003-05-28 14:39 · Score: 1

NAT is not the same as a firewall

I think that's why the parent called it a "poor man's firewall".
Re:NAT still useful by 3.1415926535 · 2003-05-28 15:49 · Score: 1

Actually, I find it more likely that either
a) He doesn't know what a NAT box does or
b) He doesn't know what a firewall does.

A NAT box = one of those small DSL router boxes or some sort of program like SyGate or Linux's NAT support.

A "poor man's firewall" = something like ZoneAlarm or iptables.
Re:NAT still useful by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 17:58 · Score: 0

Nah.

Most of us here know what he's talking about.

I find it more likely that you're just making lots of noise.
Re:NAT still useful by dknj · 2003-05-28 17:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

[firewall]
allow all outgoing connections
allow any established incoming connections
deny any incoming connections

[NAT box]
forward all outgoing connections
forward any established incoming connections
deny any incoming connections

hmm looks like nat boxes can be used as a poorman's firewall. now if you want to implement state based rules or other goodies, this is were the firewall steps ahead.

-dk
Re:NAT still useful by Jonner · 2003-05-28 21:21 · Score: 1

Proper stateful firewall rules can be just as effective in protecting a private network whether there is or isn't NAT going on. I've used Linux IP Masquerading a lot, as it's necessary in many cases, but it is a nasty kludge.

Definition of an IP address by MavEtJu · 2003-05-28 12:46 · Score: 1

Without an IP address--a 32-bit string of numbers--a 3G phone,

A 32 bit string of numbers... The most interesting definition of IP address I've ever seen!

--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

telephone survey? by zogger · 2003-05-28 12:59 · Score: 1

Yep, not too accurate a survey if they tried to call people who don't have a phone!

"ringgg!! Hello! do you have a phone? computer connected to it? yes? thankyou." click, next surveyed person....

MIT Fraternities DO have a class B by alexhmit01 · 2003-05-28 13:03 · Score: 1

My house had a /16 address (not a B technically, B is the range that are carved out as Bs, it was a part of an A) ... I ran it for a few terms. We were only allowed to use 254 addresses, but the rest were held for future use. We weren't allowed DHCP, it had to have static IPs with names assigned in their cryptic system.

They were experimenting with rolling out DHCP across another of the "C" classes, and other things. The point was that you'd eventually want more addresses, and MIT has them for being first.

It also makes MIT's routing easier, as every cluster could have a segment, etc.

MIT has a class A by virtue of MIT's involvement in the whole project. What MIT does with those addresses is their business. They have given each off-campus living group 254 addresses. The fact that the rest of that /16 subnet isn't used is none of your business.

Alex

Re:MIT Fraternities DO have a class B by The+Other+White+Meat · 2003-05-28 15:34 · Score: 1

Bullshit.

The IPv4 Address Space is a SHARED RESOURCE

Just like the air WE breathe, the water WE drink, and the electromagnetic spectrum WE communicate with.

If there comes a time when the IPv4 address space truly runs out, and the world is not ready for the full IPv6 changeover, those who are blatantly wasting their allocations with primitive network schemes (that would be you, MIT) should be required to implement a more sophisticated NAT scheme. Get over it

--

--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
Re:MIT Fraternities DO have a class B by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 15:51 · Score: 0

You would never have had IPv4 without the help of MIT and others. Show some fucking gratitude.
Re:MIT Fraternities DO have a class B by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-29 00:55 · Score: 0

And that kind of elitist attitude is why we have ASSHOLES running IANA, ICANN, etc.

this is a problem??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 13:08 · Score: 0

1. buy up all the IP addresses here you can find
2. send MASSIVE AMOUNTS of spam emails TO asia offering IP addresses for sale
3.?????
4.PROFIT! ,and ENOUGH profit to hire jakov smirnoff to hang around your pad telling "in soviet russia jokes" WITH beavis and butthead accents!

IPv6 would be good for them. by mrmeval · 2003-05-28 13:17 · Score: 1

Inside the country going to IPv6 should work well.

I think china is routing everything out through a proxy so it would not be difficult for them to do at all and put them one up on the rest of the world.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

Connection to your toaster is not optized! by SpaceForRent · 2003-05-28 13:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Just great!
Does that mean that we will see all these "connection to your toaster is not optimized" pop-up messages?

Two-Tier Internets and Civil Liberties by billstewart · 2003-05-28 13:46 · Score: 1

Now that CIDR lets us do classless addressing, and NAT lets multiple users share an address, and security forces us to use firewalls anyway, there's really plenty of address space for business use - Class A space has about 2 billion addresses, which can provide one address for every worker in the world with only 4:1 sharing (whether the sharing is done by NAT or by dialup modems, which typically support about 10:1 user:modem ratios.) In practice you need a bit more Real IP access than that, because not everything's allocated efficiently, and because interesting applications might need real external servers, but a lot of sites share far higher ratios than that, and most of the 8 billion people on Earth don't have a desk job with their own dedicated computer.

The real problem is home access - as Hugh Daniel puts it, If you're a NAT on the Net, you're NOT on the Net." In particular, you're dependent on your ISP's firewalls for email, web, and general IP access to the real world, and greatly restricted in your ability to provide information services, especially anything your ISP isn't technically competent at, and you're subject to any filtering or censorship your ISP might do. The canonical example is the "Great Firewall Of China", which
tries to prevent Chinese residents from seeing anything about Falun Gong or other forms of thoughtcrime.

It's true that Asia's APNIC got a lot less of the address space than the US did, and they may need some more before the Great IPv6 Renumbering happens. According to IANA's List of IPv4 Address Space Assignments, more than half the Class A space is unused (either never assigned or returned by public-spirited organizations that are using newer technology such as CIDR.) Class B is probably the tightest, though supernets of Class C space took off lots of the pressure. IANA is hoarding the Class A space, and maybe this will push us toward IPv6 a bit faster.

ICANN was actively discouraging IPv6 use a couple of years ago (I haven't checked up on their evil plans lately...) Their method was to declare that they were going to charge $2500 for a /48, which is the smallest generally-allocated block of IPv6 space available - so if you wanted to own your own space, it was going to cost you. I suspect part of the reason was because they wanted the money, of course, and part of it was because they didn't want to lose control over a major chokepoint of the net, but also there's the more legitimate issue that deciding the right way to restructure routing for the future shape of the internet is going to be pretty difficult, and they'd rather delay the existence of working code in order to get rough consensus first.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

CiscoIOS by jroysdon · 2003-05-28 13:46 · Score: 1

IAFAIR, mainline Cisco IOS only added IPv6 support within the last year or so. It is there though, you just need to upgrade (which may mean you need more DRAM and flash).

Re:CiscoIOS by Lxy · 2003-05-28 15:26 · Score: 1

I need DRAM, flash, and a Cisco contract. Try to explain to your boss that he should dish out a pile of money to upgrade to a new standard when we can do IPv4 NAT for free. :-)

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq

22 Million IP Addresses...Not! by Xochil · 2003-05-28 13:54 · Score: 1

The IDC research analyst who supplied the "stark numbers" claiming China has only 22 million IP addresses assigned to it needs to actually do the research before making the claim. Anybody who takes the time to parse through the APNIC and ARIN stats files will see that this "expert" is off by nearly 10 million. China has 31 million IP's assigned to it. My site has a full listing of them all (and Korea too!) for your blocking pleasure. http://www.okean.com/asianspamblocks.html

Try and get IPv6 support from your ISP by jroysdon · 2003-05-28 14:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I called up my ADSL provider, SBC (formerly PacBell): Took 4 people before I finally had someone who know what the difference was between IPv4 and IPv6. No plans to offer it anytime soon. No demand, customers aren't asking for it (I was the first, they claimed).

I called up my T1 providers at work - MCI/UUNET and Sprint. Neither one offer production IPv6 services. Sprint was offering tunneling to a test-bed IPv6 network (on the 6BONE), but I've emailed the contact 3 times, no reply. Same with UUNET, I emailed the US-UUNET 6BONE contacts, no reply. I did actually get a reply from the South Africa UUNET contact (funny thing is I know him from Shadowfire IRC).

You simply cannot convert to IPv6 here in the US without using the private IPv6 ranges (akin to IPv4 RFC1918 address space). Why? Because only ISPs get IPv6 address space, and then they are to assign it to sub-ISPs and/or businesses.

Actually, I take that back, if you want to pay for a T1 all the way to one of Hurrican Electric's sites, you can get native IPv6:
ipv6.he.net.

I've been using he.net's IPv6 tunnels to them for about 6 months. Mainly though, I set up tunnels between my sites, so the traffic isn't really flowing to he.net's network. Think of it as a VPN, but with globally unique IPv6 addresses (which you can access from any host that can get on the IPv6 backbone or tunnel via IPv4 to an IPv6 backbone).

So, everyone, email or call your ISP and tell them you'd like to get IPv6 address space.

But here's a thought, why should they spend the time and money to upgrade their infrastructure when what they have "works just fine" right now? Are you willing to pay more per month for your own IPv6 address space? I currently pay $15 more per month for my 5 (technically 9) static IPs from SBC. I'd trade those statics for a single IPv4 address and a IPv6 /64. I wouldn't pay even more for just IPv6 so long as there are free IPv6 tunnel brokers and I've got static IPv4 addresses to tunnel with.

What AT&T and BBN and manufacturers and I do by billstewart · 2003-05-28 14:01 · Score: 1

AT&T and BBN are both ISPs (BBN as "Genuity"). In AT&T's case, the 12.0.0.0/8 network was originally for the Hyperchannel that connected the Murray Hill Cray to half a dozen other devices, back when Crays were big. (Hyperchannel was a fast LAN that could feed things like Crays and mainframes. Allegedly there was some reason that the 12.x couldn't be subnetted, though I'm not sure if that was because of the Cray or the Hyperchannel or the Cray's Hyperchannel drivers or something.) So anyway, this Class A address space was just sitting around basically unused when AT&T finally got enough of a clue to get into the ISP business, which was a fairly reasonable thing to use a Class A for.

But Manufacturers don't need Class A addresses. Yes, they roll a lot of boxes off the assembly lines. Then they sell them to customers, who plug them into their own networks (or their ISPs' networks), not into the manufacturers. IBM does need some space for managing machines for its managed-services customers, and if it only needs a million external Internet addresses for its ~300K employees, using a Class A's 16 million addresses is pretty wasteful. In reality, much of that ought to be behind firewalls, in which case it can be RFC1918 private space.

And then there's me - I've got a Class A all to myself, which is 127.*.*.*. Mine, mine, mine, all mine! :-)

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:solving the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 14:06 · Score: 0

ITYM 'liberating'

There is also the pricing... by davevr · 2003-05-28 14:18 · Score: 1

My wife's company in china just got some static IP address. The price was about US$8/month - quite a bit less than in US. I guess the market effect for this hasn't kicked in yet...

Why does Big Business need to start ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 14:23 · Score: 0

We don't have a problem. My company runs a huge network with VERY FEW real IP's, using NAT and proxies, it is more secure, gives you MUCH more freedom in LOGICAL implementation and design, there is really very few reasons you need a MANY static IP's.
The consumer electronics folks need to design their devices to function that way. There is no bloody reason why every device needs a real IP.
Beyond that I am not convinced that the effort to move to IPv6 couldn't be better spent deriving a replacement for the stack entirely, one that has more modern uses in mind. TCP/IP works well for what it was designed for, but the uses we are trying to put it to far exceed what the originators envisioned or planned for.
As I understand it IPv6 is backward compatible so what stops them from going it alone ? I am suprised China hasn't seen the advantage is 'owning' the first installation and the 'control' it will give them...

Who Cares? by fmaxwell · 2003-05-28 14:35 · Score: 1

I can hardly get upset about China's inability to make do with the IP address space we so graciously provided them. Development of the Internet and its basic protocols (IP, TCP/IP, UDP, ettc.) was done by the U.S. at U.S. taxpayer expense. Yeah, I know that others later created applications that used those protocols (like HTTP), but the U.S. invented everything from Ethernet to the IP protocol, so we are entitled to as great a percentage of IPV4 as we want.

IP address allocation by Country by tgotchi · 2003-05-28 14:48 · Score: 1

Here is a table of IP address allocation by Country.

ip address

Slashdot asleep at the wheel again.... by /Idiot\ · 2003-05-28 14:51 · Score: 3, Funny

My fav bit... "Perhaps IPv6 will solve the problem."

--
/dev/Idiot/

What a silly thing to complain about! by binutils · 2003-05-28 14:54 · Score: 1

Out of IPs? Well, let them eat cake!

Re:What AT&T and BBN and manufacturers and I d by LinuxHam · 2003-05-28 15:02 · Score: 1

But Manufacturers don't need Class A addresses. Yes, they roll a lot of boxes off the assembly lines. Then they sell them to customers

Showing as much respect as I can for your low UID, I know that manufactured parts don't need IP addresses, thank you. I was referring to the vast manufacturing plants that have at least partially automated assembly lines. Something has to control the robots at the Ford plant, and start and stop the belts moving the parts down the line. And now with cameras snapping pictures of parts rolling by on the belt as part of quality control, there are thousands upon thousands of devices that need IP connectivity throughout ALL of their manufacturing plants around the world.

Come on, show some respect to your elders. At least to someone who worked at NYU while the cameras mentioned above (and their software) were being developed, and then went on to work at an actual PC manufacturer. The information about the 12 network was interesting, though.

And please contact me if you want to lease some address space in the class A I run.. the 10 network..

--
Intelligent Life on Earth

Vietnam has only tens class C IP address by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 16:10 · Score: 0

We have only 5 ISPs to server 400K computers. Now new ISP only have option to 10.10.* IP address when they want to provide services in new cities.

Proxy/Censorship/Firewall by wolf- · 2003-05-28 16:15 · Score: 1

They only really need one public IP.
They can run all 1.3 billion users through a single system.
Then the government over there wont have to work so hard at censoring their citizen's view of the outside world and can firewall all the information off so the outside world cant see whats going on inside.

--
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab

The problem is money. Wow, big surprise. by ahfoo · 2003-05-28 16:29 · Score: 1

I can't believe so many people are so missing the point.
I personally have, and no others who have their own class C's that are unrouteable because they applied for them personally back in the early eighties before the Net went corporate.
They just sit there unused and the reason is very simple --money. In order to route to those addresses you need to pay off the big money hustlas. Until they're gone, the squeeze is on.
And that's why we don't use IPv6. It's quite simple and the bottom line is cash dollars in the IP bubble economy.

Lets just get rid of.... by skogs · 2003-05-28 17:26 · Score: 1

Lets just get rid of their whole continent. Take away all the spammer's networks. They can then spend all their time spamming eachother, and finding ways to counterspam. tehy can make up their own damn chinanet system and run it however they want. then we can have ip6 all to ourselves, and have no more offers to increase our penis size, see young college coeds get wild, or earn money in nigeria.

--
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!

IP V6 way ahead of our times and just plain stupid by Nazmun · 2003-05-28 17:28 · Score: 1

I'm a cisco network admin student and a webhost. I deal with and type ip addresses all the time. For troubleshooting or just configuring i read, compare, and type ips atleast a 50 times in a slow day.

There is no way us humans will be able to manage address that freaking long. Unless the number system has improved i don't see it as a possiblility. I think we need no more then 8 octets for a long time. We may go ip crazy and it wouldn't take too much imagination (at least not ip v6 running out of space imagination with 4th dimension theories)to run out of current ips*65k.

Part of our current problem is distribution and we need lots of ips to make everything work smoothly. I think 8 octets would be more then sufficient for a while (4 billion squared?). We don't need more ips then known particles in this galaxy as ip v6 provides.

--
Hmmm... Pie...

Squeeze 'em all in! by toybuilder · 2003-05-28 17:36 · Score: 1

Heck, if 10 relatives can all share a small apartment, they can certainly share a small IP allocation.

Re:Squeeze 'em all in! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 22:52 · Score: 0

They take up less space because they get exercise walking around.

Re:What AT&T and BBN and manufacturers and I d by billstewart · 2003-05-28 18:42 · Score: 1

Manufacturing plants are mostly an appropriate use for 10.x space and NAT - there's a lot of stuff you want to keep separate. On the other hand, they did a lot of work on IPSEC, so it's possible they'd have enough stuff tunnelled together that it's not enough, with early enough implementations that they were really tunnelling rather than doing NAT or DMZs.

My usual way of dealing with Network 10, by the way, is to expect that there'll be some merger or network interface or other forcing it to combine with another Network 10, so I usually subnet it on Class C boundaries and pick a random number between 10.11.11.* and 10.250.254.* for the starting subnet, not using 10.100.*.*, so that collisions are unlikely.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Running Out of IPs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 18:46 · Score: 0

Perhaps what is needed in the interim is better IP management. ISP's and other network providers could give clients private IP addresses (unless they are servers or have a specific need to be seen by the outside world. Then you just put all the clients traffic through a transparent proxy. This would free up a lot of ip addresses.

Re:Running Out of IPs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 21:02 · Score: 0

If a proxy relays all 2^16 TCP and UDP ports between a "private" and a real address, you've gained nothing (you might as well assign the real address to that machine). If it doesn't, it's not transparent, and only a few of the most popular apps will even grudgingly work.
If you don't have a routable address, you aren't actually on the Internet, and your "ISP" has defrauded you.

IP address space is global! by chuckychesthair · 2003-05-28 19:25 · Score: 1

Like someone has pointed out before, address space is a global resource, and about 30% is available.

Asia (through APNIC) can use these as well as the US (through ARIN) or Europe (through RIPE NCC) can.

If 1 region runs out, we all run out.

CC

How come no mention of APNIC, ARIN, RIPE etc by ipritch220 · 2003-05-28 20:25 · Score: 1

How can an article about IP address exhaustion in ASPAC make no mention of APNIC, the authority assigned the task of regulating IP addresses in the region?

There should still be a fair amount of unallocated global space available which can be given to APNIC to be allocated to members (mostly ISPs), who then assign it to their customers.

I would say this is a non-issue.

I.

DoD is wasteful by kir · 2003-05-28 21:20 · Score: 1

The DoD wastes so much IP space, it's sickening. Example: Yokota AB, Japan has a class B (/16). Last time I checked (a couple of years ago when I was their perimeter security guy), only ~4000 IP addresses responded to nmap. We were only using ~4000 out of ~65000 addresses!!! WTF? And you know what?!?! Misawa AB, Japan; Osan AB, S. Korea; Kunsan AB, S. Korea; etc. etc. etc. all have /16s too. The Navy, Army, and Marine Corps are just as wasteful. Not all bases/posts are like this, but many, many are.

They're getting better though. I had to jump through many hoops to get the DoD to give my customer a /23. The hoops were good hoops though - they wanted diagrams and usage charts to make sure we would use the requested IP space properly. They probably should have been doing this ages ago.

--
3cx.org - A truly bad website.

In simpler times ... by rangergordon · 2003-05-28 22:04 · Score: 1

Ah, 1977: disco was big; pantslegs and shoes were even bigger.

Not everything was big, however. In those days, if you needed a "network number", you had 8 bits from which to choose.

And what big, draconian agency did they set up to parcel out that meager supply of numbers? His name was Jon Postel. According to RFC739, Jon was the go-to guy, not just for network numbers, but for all your numeric needs:

If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, etc. please contact Jon to receive a number assignment.

Actually, Jon was probably not draconian at all; he sounds like a nice fellow. Need a number? Just ask Jon. It seems ARPANET really had that personal touch.

China should go to IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-28 23:21 · Score: 0

then I can block all ipv6 and prevent hackers from entering the network, afterall they are all from China anyway, aren't they?

Good, this means my SMTP blacklist is complete by pbegley · 2003-05-28 23:46 · Score: 1

I run a relatively small mail server for friends, family and a few small businesses.

I'm blocking 211, 212, 218/8 and lots of smaller subnets. I whitelisted all the mailing lists I use and it doesn't appear I'm blocking any legit mail (unless jhnpq4os6@yahoo.com is someone my kids know, and I don't think so).

So if China has run out of IP addresses, my job is almost done. Where is Russia on the list??

Fuck 'em until they get a clue that hosting P0rn, gambling and sex sites isn't really the basis for a 'new economy' in the East.

Re:Who Cares? by Cackmobile · 2003-05-28 23:57 · Score: 1

I would think that the US would want Asia to develop more so they could become greater trading partners.

--
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George

Re:Who Cares? by fmaxwell · 2003-05-29 00:41 · Score: 1

I would think that the US would want Asia to develop more so they could become greater trading partners.

I can't speak for the U.S., but what I have seen as a result of the development of Asia is outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Everything from tech support to engineering to manufacturing is being outsourced. I'm sure that makes some U.S. CEOs very happy, but it does nothing for the millions of Americans who, as a result, are out of work. Since China, for example, can be largely self-sufficient, the opportunities for export to China are limited and will remain that way until wages more or less equalize between the U.S. and China. While that is somewhat of an oversimplification in that it does not take into account worker efficiency or the costs to transport goods, it's basically true. Chinese citizens won't buy an American-made widget that when the Chinese-made widget is a fraction of the cost due to lower Chinese production costs. This cost differential will lead to an ever greater trade imbalance, with the U.S. importing Chinese goods and exporting U.S. jobs.

Re:Who Cares? by Cackmobile · 2003-05-29 01:24 · Score: 1

I totally agree. But my argument is the one they use to get China into the WTO and other things.

Also we shouldn't begrudge poorer nations our help.

--
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George

China Filter by ping_me · 2003-05-29 01:47 · Score: 1

Since China wants to filter everything anyway, and they can use NAT, why do they need more than 1 ip address?

--

I'm against being for anything.

Y2K Rant - Who'd thought? by Nipok+Nek · 2003-05-29 02:42 · Score: 1

Don't worry. Mankind will have to fix the Y10K screw-up LONG before we have to fix IPv6.

(Ya mean the year is FIXED as 4 digits? What idiot did that? Didn't they know it'd break one day?)

--
Why choose white shoes?

Re: Asia Running Out Of IP Addresses by (BW)ShellShocked · 2003-05-29 03:34 · Score: 1

So what? If they are allowed to go to IPV6, then there will just be "billions" of open-relays rather than just their 22 million. Let them all convert to NAT/PAT, close up their open relays, recover their 22 million wasted IPs, OR quit whining :p Bottom line: Asia running out of IPs is the best damned anti-spam system there is! - SS -

I call Bullshit by alexhmit01 · 2003-05-29 05:47 · Score: 1

You're full of it. MIT has their network run properly. The class of IPs is segmented on meaningful lines, and all machines have an IP. There is no need for MIT to switch to a hacked segment because the rest of the world wants to avoid switching to IPv6.

MIT and other institutions that were instrumental in creating the Internet as we know it got larger blocks of IPs that others get now. So what? There is a solution that has plenty of addresses.

If people don't want to roll out IPv6, I don't see why others should pay for the decision. MIT runs their network correctly. There is nofirewall, all machines are in DNS, it's the RIGHT WAY to run a network. I don't see why MIT should switch to a hacky solution because others are being silly.

Besides, who is this group going to do the requiring? The Slashdot masses? Give me a break.

The people that created the Internet have more IPs. Everyone that wants to be a free rider on the research done by others can deal with what is left.

You can't just declare everything a shared resource because you want to. Those IPs are MIT's, by virtue of what MIT did when IPv4 was becoming a reality.

What did you do to entitle yourself to ANY IPs?

Alex

Too Few IPv6 addresses??? by AntiMagicMan · 2003-05-29 08:04 · Score: 1

Then why not use a 1024 bit system, that would mean several billion for every subatomic particle in the universe.

Re:Who Cares? by fmaxwell · 2003-05-29 17:13 · Score: 1

Also we shouldn't begrudge poorer nations our help.

I agree with this totally. In fact, I am sickened by the fact that we can find the money to wage war in Iraq but can't find the money to save millions of people who are starving to death in Ethiopia.

But we should begrudge those nations our jobs when we have the highest unemployment in decades. At times like this, the U.S. government, and, yes, U.S. corporations, should be concerned with the well-being of U.S. citizens.

Some guy being paid $2.80 per day in China to build Sears Crafsman drill presses is not going to be buying a Sears Craftsman drill press anytime soon. I think that we are already seeing the effects of U.S. businesses poisoning the well by outsourcing U.S. jobs. Consumers have less money to spend and those who do have it are hesitant to spend, not knowing if they will find themselves victims of outsourcing in the near future.

Re:Why do you keep talking nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-30 02:15 · Score: 0

>cisco is clueless with manageing route tables, a typical router can't cope with more than 10,000 or so entries

the current size of the internet routing table is just over 120,000 entries. there are certainly cisco routers being used with that routing table.

Nanobots' Addresses by AuraSeer · 2003-05-30 04:29 · Score: 1

(Pleanty of room there for a _lot_ of nanobots)

Are you assuming that each individual nanobot would have its own unique IP? Even in the theoretical case that would not be necessary.

The advantage of a large number of nanobots would be their mass behavior. You give an instruction to the swarm as a whole, and the individual bots automagically figure out what sub-tasks to perform. Blah blah convergent behavior blah blah distributed processing blah.

There never is (and never should be) any reason to uniquely address "the nine squillionth nanobot from the left," because that bot is just a component. There's no reason for the component to communicate with the outside world. It would be like assigning separate IPs to each DIMM in a PC, or to each spark plug in your car engine; it's theoretically possible, but totally pointless.

Yes, you are correct. by mindstrm · 2003-05-31 11:37 · Score: 1

IT's *exactly* like saying InterNIC doesn't control DNS, and it's true.

The reason nobody used the alternative DNS servers was because there was no real NEED or DEMAND for them. They didn't really fill a void.. they represented more pain than they were worth.

Now, let's say hypothetically China has some political issue with the DNS system... they could start .china, run their own root servers, have everyone in the country use them, and maybe it WOULD be used, because it fills a real honest NEED . Yes I know they have their own ccTLD.. this is just theory.

IF we really NEEDED to supersede what ICANN was doing, we could.

Re:Yes, you are correct. by jroysdon · 2003-05-31 13:22 · Score: 1

But you'll just be in your own little world, just like with alternative DNS roots. It won't route anywhere else, so you might as well be using RFC1918 address space. In fact, that's a perfect example.

Yeah by mindstrm · 2003-06-01 04:11 · Score: 1

SUre..... but if that "entire world" Is.. say..CHINA and the rest of southeast asia.. it's not exactly a little world, is it.

This is getting out of hand.. the point is that the only thing that binds people to recognizing the same authority with regards to IP address allocation is the desire to interoprate, and not being in your own " little world" as you put it.

If a large enough region feelt that they were not getting what they needed to do what they wanted, ignoring those allocations would be a possibility. Yes, it woudl confine them.. but let's get real hypothetical:

Forget IPv6 for a minute.
Let's say that China, India, and the rest of southeast asia run out of IP addresses, and the regulatory bodies are too slow and beurocratic, and basically refuse to give them more. So let's say they take a few class A spaces that are currently reserved or not in use, and the ISPs in the region agree on how to route them, and start using them. Now, all of southeast asia can use these new addresses to internetwork.. the rest of the world is just refusing ot use it. Now, a major ISP in the US and Europe might say "You know what, fuck it, nobody else is using it.. I'm gonna recognize that route, and deal with it. I can always change it later"... and so on. Eventually, it becomes in use.

Yes, of course, that's unlikely... but the fact is... we only recognize these authorities so long as they are useful to us, and if they aren't, we can start recognizign one that is. Fundamentally DNS works.. aside from everyone wanting a .com during the boom, which was an artificial demand, there was tons of DNS space, and no real REASON to fork off an alternate DNS sysetm.. the same goes for routes.. we are getting tighter, but still have room to grow, and things can be rearranged as necessary.

Re:Yeah by jroysdon · 2003-06-01 08:33 · Score: 1

I don't think you understand how global routing tables work at exchange points. ISPs don't just say "I'm gonna recognize that route." If you don't have the proper routing objects in the right databases, you don't get recognized.

You're ignoring the fact that if only China/Asia/wherever are using those routes, they still cannot get traffic back from the rest of the internet from their transit ISPs. Sure, they can send the traffic with whatever source address they like, but it'll go nowhere on the way back. It's useless address space. Again, it might as well just use RFC1918 address space, it'll work just as well.

"but the fact is... we only recognize these authorities so long as they are useful to us, and if they aren't, we can start recognizign one that is."

If you're here in the US, try that with the DMV or the IRS, or whatever other "authority" you don't like and doesn't work for you ;-p

On the contrary by mindstrm · 2003-06-01 09:27 · Score: 1

This is getting WAYYY out of hand.

I understand perfectly well how routing works, how transit between ISPs works, how routing announcements work in various protocols, and how most network gear works down to the individual bits, and in some cases, the electronics, at an analog level, right dow to the actual electron flow, OK?

I'm not IGNORING any fact.. I'm saying that if lack of address space became important enough, and they were lacking the ability to communicate amongst themselves, they could sacrifice the ability (at least temporarily) to communicate with the rest of the world. 2 billion people in the region is not exactly a TINY number, is it?

As for comparing ICANN to, say, the DMV or IRS, that's absurd, one has authority backed by LEGAL reprecussions. The other is simply, more or less, a standards body.

Let's not forget what the Internet is; it's a collection of networks that can communicate between each other because they choose to use the same protocols, and follow an addressing scheme that assures everyone has their own space, in a nutshell. Nothign prevents me from using your registered IP addresses on a network, adn nothing prevents my buddy from using someone elses, and nothing prevents us from linking our networks together over a leased line using those addresses, and it can grow that way forever.. it's all just a big cooperative effort. It works by choice; because there was no reason to argue the points these people made; dns worked, ip allocations we believe, for the most part, are just and fair, and the way they haev to be, etc.. and as long as it stays that way, it's good.

Now, if you want, you could say that this new Asian network I made up doesn't follow the ICANN rules strictly, so it shoudl be called AsiaNET instead of the Internet.. fine; that's cool. I mean, we have Internet2, right? Yes, internet2 does not route to Internet, and vice versa, because they are based on separate things.. but it IS possible to engineer some overlap in, if one wanted to (we don't).

I can draw you some detailed pictures if it helps.

Slashdot Mirror

Asia Running Out Of IP Addresses

732 comments