Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the ip-address-in-every-pot dept.
miladus writes "According to a story at Zdnet,
Asian countries are running out of IP addresses. China, for example,
was assigned 22 million IP addresses (for a population of 1.3 billion)
under IPv4. The US owns 70 percent of current IP addresses. Perhaps IPv6 will solve the problem."
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..
It means that all of your IP addresses are belong to us. Wait a second--
Corporations are at fault?
by
sinergy
·
· 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?
-- ...
32 bits ought to be enough
by
D0wnsp0ut
·
· 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!"
This only means
by
earthforce_1
·
· 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:They should really swap to IPV6 then..
by
Sexy+Commando
·
· 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
Asia is one of the primary adopters of IPv6
by
illumin8
·
· 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:2 solutions
by
Zathrus
·
· 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.
Maybe they should limit them!
by
mhore
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Only 1 per family.
*ducks*
--
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem?
by
emcron
·
· 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.
Re:IPv6? Yes because NAT is too limited
by
jcdr
·
· 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...
Re:2 solutions
by
-brazil-
·
· 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
30% of ipv4 space still unallocated
by
ruud
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space...
by
spaceyhackerlady
·
· 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:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem?
by
hesiod
·
· 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:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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!
Slashdot Mirror
The world has been running out of IP addresses, and suffering from global warming for as long as I can remember...
Blar.
Give em a few of those linksys routers...
It means that all of your IP addresses are belong to us. Wait a second--
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?
...
Perhaps this could signal a limit on the amount of spam coming from China?
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
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.
RTFA
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
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.
Only 1 per family.
*ducks*
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
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
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...
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
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
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
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
> 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).
Do some more math for us. You know how that turns us on!