Slashdot Mirror
The Impending IP Crisis
Factomatic writes "With the supply of IP addresses expected to run out by 2005 due to the popularity explosion of the Internet and the expectation that everything from your phone to your washing machine will soon have its own IP address, Alex Lightman, CEO of Charmed Technology and chairman of last month's North American IPv6 Global Summit tells the New York Times "we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being." IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman, director of product engineering for Verio, which offers IPv6 in San Francisco, Washington and elsewhere. The article is a good layman's backgrounder on the looming IP crisis."
Great, another "we're running out of IPs, really, for real this time guys we mean it" story. I mean, sure, IPv6 will eradicate this problem (while introducing a slew of new ones) but IPv4 is fine for a while. We should just revoke the IPs for China and other firewalled nations who dont' play nice with DARPAnet.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Who needs a new word to describe the number of possible addresses? It's just 1/2.9387358770557187699218413430556e+61st of a google.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
To quote the article "Such sensors could allow people to operate devices from anywhere there is an Internet connection." and "Now that the address space is available, the next step is figuring out how to use it."
I've got an idea, a internet connected toilet. "Using a cellphone in Los Angeles", I could flush the toilet at my home remotely and have the toilet seat drop down automatically (you know, to keep domestic tranquility). I could even call the toilet to see if anyone is using it.
I better go patent it...
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
Sounds like a solution to me.
It's just going to be a pain in the ass to get every one switched over, though.
Yeah, but those 100 IP addresses can be behind a household NAT and share a single IP address. With the way people use the internet today, I'm not sure the crisis is so serious...
IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number,"
how about "thirty six trillion" ?
Let's just deploy it! Nevermind the fact that a lot of equipment has to be upgraded. Never mind that nobody's really been playing with it, nevermind we're all in a recession. Let's just do it.
As with everything like this, the powers-that-be (i.e., the telcos and ISPs) will drag their heels until they are either forced to change, or they are convinced it will increase profits. Expect the changeover to go extremely slowly. Expect providers to try every trick in the book to milk their existing network for every last day they can possibly profit from it. The fact that the economy is in the toilet doesn't help either.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I would have thought that the invention of NAT would have taken care of this. You only need one IP address per organization/company/household.
Is it time for private networks to be manditory?
I'm sure I saw this exact same post on /. in 1998. Except then it said we'd run out of addresses by 2000.
Hello? There's this thing called NAT, you see, and in many ways it's preferable to not have every one of your 100 IP-enabled devices sitting there on the real internet just waiting to get hacked.
Cheers
-b
I'm kind of hoping to not have any IP addresses in 10 years. I'm becoming rapidly overwhelmed by technology even though I've been a working linux admin for 10+ years.
... film at 11.
:wq
I wonder how long it will be before we have a washing machine buffer overflow...
Apartment dwellers below the afflicted system should take precautions now....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
"...a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number..."
Um, I think 35 trillion, 350 trillion, or whatever, is a good word for the number, don't you?
unless a new prognostication that 'the end is nigh, in 2005' passes as news. everyone knows it's gonna happen. just as we all know that with NAT and proxies, most of it can be safely delayed by tech companies until they have an outside fiscal force to upgrade.
and i doubt my fridge will have an IP address anytime -before- ipv6 starts to be rolled out en masse.
as with all pure tech - it needs that killer app. something needs to come out that is so fantastically great that everyone has to have it - and it needs to require ipv6. until then - at best we'll be going dual-mode.
good luck finding that app, and educating users what it is, and what it does.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
IPv6 is only 50% bigger than IPv4.
Someone needs to recheck their figures.
Best Windows Freeware
Dont rely on ips, but use the ports! its not like most ISP's will give you a class c range for your house! just get one and use diffrent ports for your fridge.
didnt we have an artical about this with china? someone really wants everyone to go with ipv6.
Well, you know what everyone is going to do until IPv6 becomes a reality... NAT everything to death.
That ruins the original point of the internet while giving everyone the illusion that they've found the answer. I've even heard of some ISP's that only issued 10. addresses. We need to start telling people that NATing is not the answer before we are going to get people to see the problem for what it is. And once they see, they will begin to switch over to IPv6.
Has it occurred to anyone that many of us don't WANT every light switch in our homes to have an IP address? We don't NEED to hear, at 0300, a disembodied voice from the kitchen saying "this toaster has committed an illegal operation and will be shut down". We don't need hackers flushing our toilets, opening and shutting the garage door at random, etc.
Isn't this a little overdramatic? Crisis? Having to switch to an updated protocol is a crisis?
Or perhaps there should be just one IP address assigned to every person and then you can have a device ID for everything they own. Why does each device need a globally recognizable unique ID? It would seem to make much more sense to go the device ID route, since then if you know a person's individual IP, you can say that I want to send a message to "so and so's pager" or "so and so's home computer".
Making an allocation of 35 trillion addresses is all great and good, but the underlying question is... why?
KappaStone
And here I was hoping there were some intelligent engineers behind this endeavor. Doh!
So big that there's not a word for the number, huh?
How about I come up with a bigger number and give it a name? Say, 1 followed by 100 zeros (10 to the power 10) and call it something funky like, I dunno, a googol.
Huh? Whassat? Whatcha mean prior art? Someone thought of it already? Son of a...
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Why does every human need 100 IP addresses? Home routers seem to solve a lot of the problems. A simple IP Masq fix...
As for the days of every appliance in our homes having an IP... I think that dream of the late 90s has been shelved for a while. It'll probably be decades, if ever, before our fridges are calling up to get food delivered...
The average home generally has a couple PCs / laptops...maybe an XBox or PS2 connected to net.
a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman
Cody i think the word you are looking for is actually a combination of two words, its a shitload of IP addresses
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The actual number of IPv6 addresses available is 3.4 x 10^38, or 3.4 million trillion trillion trillion. Seems like a pretty big number, although a 10MB hard drive seemed massive when I was thirteen. The main thing that bums me out is that IPv4 is so much more convenient to remember and type. I guess some lucky sysadmins will have networks that spell out easy-to-remember phrases using only letters A-F.
> "we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being."
We already have 65534 IP address for each human being. They are 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255.
Use NAT. Problem solved.
Enjoy the IPs. You can thank me later.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
When I first glanced at the headline, I thought, oh no, not another SCO article! Well, this doesn't sound quite as serious. I, for one, don't WANT my washing machine to have an IP address. I have visions of my underwear getting 0wNeD...
While IPv6 fixes many problems in IPv4, the developed world will not embrace IPv6 until many shortcomings in the protocol are addressed.
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Many of cisco's routers use the router's CPU to process IPv6 packets instead of the fast-path. The reasons for this are explained in the next few points. While Juniper's routers are substantially better at IPv6 than cisco's, IT managers are often restrained by insane corporate policy that dictactes the use of cisco.
2. There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address
Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
3. IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size - 64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.
4. The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people, each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before.
While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.
Sure, IPv6 allows for nice hacks, but is it really ready for prime time?
I wonder if once the world goes to IPv6 the old IPv4 numbers would become more valuable, sort of like a low numbered /. account.......
"Coming crisis?" We've presently got about 100 /8's unallocated to anyone right now. According to a previous slashdot story, we go through them at a rate of 2 /8's per year. Goign by that math, we've got 10 years left. In reality, it'll happen before that, but in two years? No way. There's just no way in hell that we're going to allocate 100 /8's worth of IP space in two years.
Don't get me wrong, IPv6 is kinda cool, but there's no rush. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something (like this guy).
One for each of your IQ points.
We will run out of IPv9 addresses... http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1606.html
Please direct all bug reports to
That should, of course, read "10 to the power 100". Damn keyboard.
I wish I could claim to be the first to screw up a post on Slashdot but there's already a wealth of prior art for that...
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
is this like the Y2K crisis?
"No one will ever need more than 64k of RAM."
-Bill G.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Of course, the -real- issue here is why HomeSec intel can't figure out a way to track citizens^W potential terrorists that doesn't require the use of 95 IP addresses.
I mean, I thought the whole point of the new agency was to consolidate and eliminate redundant systems...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Whats your Pr0n IP address you ask, and how do you find it?
Much like your Pr0n name of course!
Instead of your street name and your mothers maiden name mixed together, you take your street address and your mothers date of birth!
for me:
Street address number: 221
Mothers DOB (fake, duh): 31/10/54 (Canadian/British date system)
So my Pr0n IP address would be:
221.31.10.54
Try it, it's fun for the whole family!
IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman,
Am I the only one who thinks 36 trillion does not seem all that inexhaustible, only expanding by an order of 4 thousand? Once you start assigning subranges, etc., it seems like you could exhaust them. Why didn't IPV6 go to something much larger like 64 bits? On the other hand, it makes for a good excuse for still having anonymity behind NAT firewalls.
Why on earth would you need 100 addresses per human being? I can for see needing two at most, one for your home and one for your "mobile communication device". Your home would have a router and use private addresses for all your home devices. Your "mobile communication device" would have a router and use private address for all your other devices via bluetooth or whatever comes next. Does this not make sense, or I am being short sighted?
Later,
Phil
And in the meantime, you can just use this with NAT to get all the benefits of a true IP address: www.naturalip.com
...simple info on IPv6: http:// www.internet2.edu/resources/infosheetIPv6.pdf
Do not read this sig.
Here is a list of names for big numbers
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
As far as assigning IP addresses to appliances and other household electronics, wouldn't it be better to require some type of routing/dhcp system. What I mean by this is at my house we have one public IP address, but several computers that utilize that connection. We use a router which takes on the identity of that IP address and then it acts as a DHCP router giving private addresses to everything connected to it. Couldn't the same DHCP/Routing technology be used in order to reduce the excess number of public IP address would have if there were a seperate address for every appliance, computer, etc?
Did I misunderstand what he said? 281,474,976,710,656 isn't that big a number, and that doesn't take into account the various blocked ranges that I'm sure I don't know about in IPv6, things along the lines of 127.0 and 192.168 and so forth... ... though if that is what he meant, the word is "trillion." Kinda like the messenger, but not named after a Tricia.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Wake me up when it's really here.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
Every country needs a NAT gateway at the border. Yes I'm joking.
Trolling is a art,
"Actually, 35 trillion is low," said Cody Christman, director of product engineering for Verio, an Internet service provider that now offers IPv6 technology to customers in several cities, including San Francisco and Washington. "It's much bigger than that. It's so big that there's not a word for the number."
Great! Because technology terms aren't confusing enough for most people as it is, we're resorting to making up words. Imagine a future Slashdot article:
"IPv6 will have eleventy billion addfroozles! It will be based on the fragtisticalweezle specification!"
You think dealing with clueless management types who just throw buzzwords around is bad *now*, wait until they get to make things up!
From the blurb:
"IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman, director of product engineering for Verio."
It's a shame when a Verio rep has to dance around the word "google" out of fear of a lawsuit.
My
Limekiller
In what world am I going to need 100 distinct and presumably public IP addresses? I'm not arguing that the present system does not need an eventual move to something better, even though half the world has never, apparently, made a phone call let alone used a web browser, but isn't this just talking up a problem that doesn't yet exist? If I need internet access to every gadget in my house, I would prefer them to be behind a firewall with some kind of remote control security system. I really do not want script kiddies emptying the paper bins on my printers. I don't want my washing machine engaging in IRC with a Whirlpool serviceperson without my having some sort of control over it. Or am I just paranoid?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
-Reid
I've never seen the attraction of assigning an IP to your left testicle, but whatever turns you on I suppose.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
...that IANA decided to hold onto 80 or so class A's. I doubt they could even allocate all that space by 2005.
Dont believe me? get it straight from the horses mouth
Perhaps if the organizations bemoaning the lack of IP space stopped hogging so much of it there wouldn't be such a shortage.
It allows us to create billions of new sensors that can instantly communicate, taking human error out of the equation," Skynet went on-line on Monday, August 4th, 1997 and becomes self aware at 2:14 a.m. August 29th, 1997........
!(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
Isn't this a dupe from a couple of years ago?
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
WTF are they going to do with a 100 IP Addresses per human being??? Maybe their grand plan is to assign an address to each body part or something.
Great! So my brain could send lightning fast, low-overhead UDP requests to my organs, instead of bulky nerve impulses.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
The number of IP addresses IP6 will allow is truely astronomical, 6.65x10^23 addresses for every square meter of the Earth's surface. More than enough for everyone to have an internet controlled Etch-A-Sketch
Free cell phone tracking
There's no shortage of IP space. The problem is really a political one. There is much space assigned to various US DoD organizations. At first glance, this is not surprising, as the Internet grew from Arpanet/Milnet. But now, most of this stuff for security reasons has moved off of the Internet, which is reasonable. Why haven't they turned in their allocations?
What's even worse, DoD actually was assigned, by IANA, two NEW class A spaces in 1998 (214.0.0.0 and 215.0.0.0 , i.e. 214/7) -- for WHAT REASON?
Something stinks at IANA.
I am also not very pleased with ARIN. They seem to exist to serve only themselves and huge corporations. Their fee structure is set up to crush the small ISPs. The yearly fee for small allocations is high, but in bulk it is almost a reasonable price, except when you figure out they're doing basically no work for $20k. I understand the technical reasons for wanting to aggregate IP space (simpler routing tables around the world), so they want end-users with 'portable' IP space to turn them in, or at least stop using them. Not so great for hobbyists and geeks who like to switch ISPs but keep their IP space.
ARIN needs to seriously stop being pricks to the small guys and start rethinking how to accomplish their goals. I have some ideas. But slashdot is no place to get into a technical discussion of this. Hell, I don't know if anyone is reading this who cares, or even would know what I was talking about.
..someone think of the children! The dreaded EOL of IPv4 is upon us!
100 /8's left, 2 /8's per year = 50 years left, unless you wanted somebody to read your numbers differently?
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
I want to see IP as more of a general resource like electricity or water. You just plug anything into your wires/pipes, and it gets full access to the resource. Want more things getting water such as a washing machine? Then just run another pipe to it and it's got access. The current hacks of NAT are equivalent to only being allowed to install one tap in your house, and "proxying" the rest with buckets. Why cant it be like a water or electricity supply?
Those saying 'we have plenty of space left' obviously dont realise that the reason for this is that the current allocation policies for IPv4 make it impossible to get space for arbitrary devices. Yes, if you only allocate one IP address per gateway, of course you wont run out for a while. But that then mandates the use of ugly hacks such as NAT. A single tap per house/organisation.
To make full use of the potential of the net, one must be able to freely allocate IP addresses to any devices that want them, no matter how trivial it may seem today. Back when IP was invented, it was never in anyones wildest dreams that there would be an address shortage. There were barely a hundred hosts yet 32 bits of space. Look at what's happened in 20-odd years!
Lets not make the same mistake today.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
Seriously though, every device on the face of the planet does *not* need its own private address. ( or have an IP at all, but that's a different discussion )
Of the devices that really need outside connectivity, I bet less then 1/3 need their own, so NAT will take care of the other 2/3.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Seeing as a googol is 10 thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion I think he may need to reconsider that statement.
'Internet! Is that thing still around?' - Homer Simpson
It is official; North American IPv6 Global Summit confirms: IPV4 is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered IPV4 community when IDC confirmed that IPV4 market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent North American IPv6 Global Summit survey which plainly states that IPV4 has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. IPV4 is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Alex Lightman to predict IPV4's future. The hand writing is on the wall: IPV4 faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for IPV4 because IPV4 is dying. Things are looking very bad for IPV4. As many of us are already aware, IPV4 continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
RFC 1001 is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time RFC 1001 developers Cody Christman only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: RFC 1001 is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
RFC 1067 leader Theo De Raadt states that there are 7000 users of RFC 1067. How many users of RFC 1189 are there? Let's see. The number of RFC 1067 versus RFC 1189 posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 RFC 1189 users. RFC 1256 posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of RFC 1189 posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of RFC 1256. A recent article put RFC 1001 at about 80 percent of the IPV4 market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 RFC 1001 users. This is consistent with the number of RFC 1001 Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Charmed Technology , abysmal sales and so on, RFC 1001 went out of business and was taken over by Verio who sell another troubled OS. Now Verio is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that IPV4 has steadily declined in market share. IPV4 is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If IPV4 is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. IPV4 continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, IPV4 is dead.
Fact: IPV4 is dying
This is far from the end of the world. So what if everyone needs 100 IP addresses inside their house? There is nothing that says they have to be universally unique. NAT technology can allow a single IP to server the entire needs of a house.
Use the non-routable addresses inside your house. Only the gateway needs to know or care the internal IPs in your house.
So if we give ONE IP per household, we're still ok, even if we run out of them. Nothing prevents taking the NAT idea a level higher, like a zip code. Nothing prevents DHCP, where you only lease an IP for a temporary amount of time...
Could it be that people who have a vested interest in the adoption of ipv6 are more likely to try and alarm us about the impending IP crisis?
Here's an alternative view from Paul Wilson, director general of APNIC, which suggests that we have 20 years left at the current growth rate.I'm still using IPX you insensitive clod!
Who modded this up?
~~~
"The Impending IP Crisis" is a good title for Slashdot. In my RSS feed I can't tell if it's going to be something about Intellectual Property (copyrights, patents, etc) or IP addresses...
Quite frankly, I was disappointed.
Sure, IPv6 will be great and all, but frankly I couldn't care less. We should be concentrating on getting fatter pipes everywhere. 56K Modems are ridiculous. Even cable/dsl is pretty slow, especially when it comes to upload bandwidth. Once everyone has sufficient bandwidth (well, sufficiently more than today), then we can worry about giving every device its own address.
When you run out of IP ranges to assign, how are you going to get everybody to consolidate their IPs under NAT to make more room? Sure its possible, but the human aspect of the problem is evil.
In the article is ends with:
/.
"Now that the address space is available, the next step is figuring out how to use it."
Why bother. By the time any real services could be setup all but a few ideas won't be "patent Blocked". Trying to develop a good idea when it's Patent Blocked would be too expensive to pay off the lazy Patent Owner.
Patent Blocking. You heard it first on
As long as broadband ISPs are out there trying to sell additional IP addresses for home LANs and misleading customers into thinking these additional addresses are necessary, there cannot possibly be a real shortage.
Where is the fish? IPv4 does all that same. Not that IPv6 is bad idea. I think NYT is trying to SCO me.
Bow down and worship my interminable crusade to garner accolades!
pleeeeeeease?!!!
I love these justifications for new technologies/services/protocols. How about having a product that alerts the user AT THE MACHINE before seeing the need for remotely alerting a technician?
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6
These articles remind me of FOX news... total sensationalism to drive advertising & page views.
Whether you "approve" of NAT or not, the truth is that it is a very effective band-aid that has hindered the progress of IPv6 because it works so well. We'll be on IPv4 for at least another ten years.
Seriously now, do I need 100 IPs? This is really sounding more like overhype than a realistic world outcome. This expectation that I need 100 is ridiculous.
I'm going to ramble a bit on possible examples to prove a point that each human does not need 100 IPs.
Let's look at it this way.
Why would a 1-2 yr old need 100 IPs?
- Their tonka truck or barbie ferrrari now has upload capabilities?
- The stroller digitally syncs the mileage to the home base station
- The baby monitor is now using Wi-Fi to transmit data and allows for web cam uploads.
Hell the kid can't even grip the remote correctly! They can't even whip their own parallel port (read into it as you may).Now lets look at the more tech savvy user.
According to the article Stanford Univ. has 17 million IPs compared to India's 2 million. The problem is the old allocation of the IP addresses. If a company can't use it, cough it up and reallocate.
Also, why would my own devices need dedicated IP addresses? If I'm on my home network, the machine gets an internal IP address. There's no need for my machine to use anything else. I don't run into issues playing online games. I currently use a Dynamic IP from my DSL provider to access my home box and I can port forward as needed.
One of the major contributing factors to problems such as spammers and crackers is that it's so darn easy to scan subnets in IPv4 for open hosts. It can take under a minute to scan a complete /24 for hosts with open ports.
Now with IPv6 this situation is different. Each subnet has 64 bits of address space. That is, 18446744073709551616 IP addresses per subnet. Now, if someone could portscan at the rate of 100 addresses per second (pretty impressive), then each subnet would take 5.8 billion years[0] to scan for hosts. For one subnet! And to put this in a wider context, each site in ipv6 has 65,000 subnets. Effectively making network scans a thing of the past, and massively increasing security of the 'net.
Of course, one can still scan known hosts (eg from web server logs), but doing that is a heck of a lot harder - you'd need to get them in the first place.
[0] Said with appropriate finger quotes.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
IPv6 is bad because Cisco routers suck. No, wait, "Many of Cisco's routers" suck. You can' be serious! Once IPv6 gets off the ground, IPv6 will become fast path and eventually IPv4 will be dropped to legacy mode.
... most of the internet protocols are very wasteful. On the other hand, they are easily debuggable with relatively simple tools. This is a trade-off, obviously, and IPv6's choice is not per se good or bad, it's just different. We will see whether it will have a significant overhead. I say getting rid of spam is a better way to reduce bandwidth requirements on the internet than talking about header sizes.
About your point 2: IPv6 does not actually give out all those 2^128 IPs. The first half is for the network part, the second 64 bits are for the host part. This is necessary because autoconfiguration (which is really great, by the way!) uses a 64-bit part. The IPv6 autoconfiguration is stateless, by the way, which means it will also work without a DHCP server and it won't need reboot if the routers were down when the autoconfiguration process started.
The point about having this many addresses is that you never ever want to have to come into the remote possibility to have to switch to IPv8 because IPv6 is too small. And when you rant about the IPv6 header being 20 bytes larger than the IPv4 header, consider that the overhead of the TCP header (20+ bytes), the HTTP header (300 bytes), the Email header (500 bytes?),
IPv6 is ready for prime time. People are using it (I, for example). You can buy access to IPv6-native backbones. All the major OSses support it. There is really no excuse not to be already using it.
Simple question that I googled and still haven't seen an answer to:
How long is the IP address under IPv6?
There are still servers that I visit (for games, etc), using the real IP address... like 131.107.164.10, a great Halflife server.
That's 11 digits... I think I could easily remember 16 to 20 or so. Beyond that, I think I'd be straining to keep the different IP addresses all serperate in my head.
So, how long is an address under the new proposal?
This statement is solely an opinion. Kindly take it as such in all cases.
As a networking engineer, I am very concerned about the impending doom of IPv4 addresses running out.
But I am even more-so concerened about the sun burning out, because that would mean catastrophe for the human race! (not to mention it would mess up our nift wi-fi stuff!)
Seriously- with stop-gaps like NAT and ISP's recycling IPs from a pool for all users, its not gonna kill us.
Let cell phones work out this ipv6 thing, then tunnel, then upgrade piece by piece.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Is it just me or is 2001:0700:0700:0003:0290:27ff:fea2:477b much harder to remember than 209.174.99.125? I think that the IP crisis is best resolved by proxying and redirecting, not adding more numbers. But maybe it's just me...
To solve the "I pee" crisis, you need a networked toilet. Drinking less coffee might help too.
This is such FUD!!! There is a pure sales agenda behind the drive for v6. V6 has advantages over v4, but they come at extreme costs and the customers DON'T WANT IT! The garbage about 100 addresses for every person is just stupid hype that harkens back to the internet-connected-toaster days! AAAARRRRRrrrrgh!!!
Warning - Blood pressure exessive. Bleed me before my head explodes!
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
Better stock up! I recommend Gold and Guns (don't forget the ammo!).
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
That'll be the average home out of the thin slice of humanity that can afford two PCs. I suspect, although have absolutely no evidence to support it, that the average is nearer 0.05 PCs per home.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be so annoyingly righteous :) You're right about the IP stuff.
NAT for your car?
NAT for your PAN?
NAT on a plane?
How many protocols have been kludged up because of having to get around NAT?
Easier VPN's and Voice/Video are two things I can think of.
On a slightly different note, anyone who says NAT's good for security...wow.
"so big that there's not a word for the number,"
Maybe we should just call it Googol? (Google?)
Sorry don't hate me, I had to.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
I see a lot of individuals saying, oh we can just NAT. Well thats not the point here. For many environments NAT is not a functioning option. Not to mention, until the ISP and providers are running IPv6, we are still forced to route at the gateway. It's not NAT, but it's also not truly IPv6 either (read: 6to4 host). This is all great planning for the future but right now IPv6 is simply something to play with and get used to for the future. I'm running it at home, have been for some time (using 6to4 unfortunately) and I've not really seen any great benefits. There will be great benefits in the future, but we are not really able to enjoy them yet. At least until the infrastructure that delivers my connectivity is upgraded I won't. Until then I'll have to enjoy the dancing turtles (kame) and hope it catches on soon.;p
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs" - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
Hey we can make use of the addresses by assigning ip address to all our pets so that we can track them down or communicate remotely with them. Also the farmers can have IP address for all their farm animals so that they know which one is effected with foot-and-mouth virus.
It's probably been mentioned, but what about companies that have a single or multiple CLass "A"s that could just NAT? I was at a Ford dealership recently and noticed that they had a printer on a public address. Now it was probably NAT'd behind a router, but 5h1t! NAT an RFC 1918 address, not a public one!
.sig
When Novell introduced IPX, they clearly must have been thinking to way beyong IP6. IPX should give something like 4 googles worth of addresses?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The true crisis will be that with 100 IP's for each person, assigned to everything from your toilet to your coffee machine, not only will your computer be hacked but now any electronic appliance in your home has the potential to be controlled by a hacker. I think this would be great fun however, just think of it -- hacking into your buddy's electronics making them all erratically switch on and off, change channels, flush, whathaveyou.
Obviously, whether we'll need 100 IPs per person is pretty debatable. Ever, let alone soon.
However, right now, I'd like to have five IPs. My provider charges me $5/month/IP. I realize, that's just my provider trying to milk me, but I'd *love* for IPv6 to be rolled out right now. It would make a million things so much easier.
I'm a leech on Kazaa, BitTorrent, Gnutella. I can't share, because of NAT. Think about how many users out there are slowing down P2P systems (including legal ones like Steam), that would be contributing if it weren't for NAT.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
For those who don't want to register w/ NYT:
u its/17next.html?ex=1059019200&en=ec2de92bc79967dd& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
u its/17next.html?ex=1059019200&en=ec2de92bc79967dd& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/technology/circ
or
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/technology/circ
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Every computer, including ATM machines, cars, airplanes, weapon systems, and your inflatable sex doll will cease to operate correctly on January 1, 2000. This so called "Y2K Bug" will bring civilization as we know it to an end.
-buf
everyone knows that 24 is the highest number
God Fucking Damnit
The shortage of IP addresses has been a "crisis" for over a decade now. CIDR and NAT have pretty much kept it under control, and could continue to do so for a while yet. As people have been pointing out, we only need a unique address for each personal accessory if we need end-to-end connectivity from my left shoe's inflation co-processor to every networked nipple ring in Norway.
Nonetheless, IPv6 is moving forward, and for a much simpler reason: money. The US military recently placed a deadline on IPv6 deployment, and they will no longer buy anything unless it's ready for IPv6 or its vendor promises it will be soon. Many of the key companies in the networking market need to sell to one part or another of the US DoD.
This requirement is putting IPv6 support on the development schedules of many companies that had been perpetually putting it off. Expect the US military and government to push ISPs for stronger IPv6 support so they can interoperate with their suppliers in their preferred fashion.
In other words, if you don't have a killer ap, get a killer user.
I thought we were already in an IP crisis...I mean look at all the crazy patents and these companies like SCO?
The killer app that you're looking for are 3G cell phones,
Every 3G cell phone has to have a IP address, and thats quite alot if you're talking about IPv4 addresses.. So a solution must be found, which people will find in IPv6.
I expect IPv6's rise to be concurrent with 3G's adoption.
I was about to bite this, but nah, forget it.
IP Shortage In Asia Just Myth, Says APNIC
Has any thought been given to how IPv6 is going to effect route summarization? Under IP4 user ip's are suballocated by ISP's to users, the ISP's themselves are supposed to announce one aggregate route for all their users. If everyone gets an IPv6 block assigned directly from the numbering authority the internet routing table is going to be staggeringly enormous. Check out the CIDR Report which details current aggregation effeciency losses under IPv4.
Which is: 340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion, 463 sextillion, 463 quintillion, 374 quadrillion, 607 trillion, 431 billion, 768 million, 211 thousand, 456.
A far cry from "35 trillion". To give you an order to this magnitude, some Australian scientists recently announced that there are 70 sextillion stars (give or take) in the known universe.
It may be pedantic, but someone who is so blinded by their work that they make hysterical claims that there's no word for the number they're pushing doesn't make me want to buy into their idea so quickly.
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
#IPv4
2^32
4294967296
#IPv6
2^12
340282366920938463463374607431768211456
quit
four billion.
two hundred ninety-four million.
nine hundred sixty-seven thousand.
two hundred ninety-six.
pope1@mobius:~$ 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.
pope1@mobius:~$
There! See?
Its just a little over 340 undecillion.
Whats so hard about understanding that? =)~
As a side effect of performing that silly
computation i vote "nonillion" as the funniest
numeric suffix in the universe.
/* * pope1 */
If NAT is a problem wih IPv6, then why can't everyone go to the brand new IcuP?
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
I'm writing to share a tragic little story.
My Dad has a PC that my sister and I used to use for our homework assignments. One night, I was writing a paper on it, when all of a sudden it went berserk, the screen started flashing, and the whole paper just disappeared. All of it. And it was a good paper! I had to cram and rewrite it really quickly. Needless to say, my rushed paper wasn't nearly as good, and I blame IPV4 for the grade I got.
I'm happy to report that my sister and I now don't have to share IP's thanks to IPV6. It's a lot nicer to work on than my dad's IPV4 was, it hasn't let me down once, and my grades have all been really good.
Thanks, Verio.
Ellen Feiss
IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman, director of product engineering for Verio, which offers IPv6 in San Francisco, Washington and elsewhere.
How about 1.1 mole
Cody Christman's high school science teacher must be very disappointed. :=)
You'd be surprised at how big numbers can be and still have names. (For what it's worth, I prefer the American names over the British ones, and I'm Australian.)
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
and 1997...
and 1998...
and 1999...
and 2000.............
Is it just me or does this seem like a step backwards? It's kind of like using MAC addresses instead of IP, just a laywer higher. I don't want every machine I have to be accessable from the internet. Besides if IP addresses were not allocated correctly, then reallocate them. IBM doesn't really need Millions of addresses. I think this bit of future is the same as those jet-powered-bubble-domed-tail-fin cars being in every garage.
I can't wait for the new NEWBIE sites to pop up. Instead of Click here for Porn! (http://127.0.0.1/) it will be Click here for Porn! (http://2002:0440:C00C:3003:0000:CF00:C0A8:2E2E/)
HA Sucker!
...that they do not use. This is because they were one of the first companies on the scene when the Internet started. But we have TONS and TONS of IPs that are not in use. I bet that if companies like mine gave all the un-needed IP space back we'd be better off for a while.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Simple. Every person will have RFID tags in everything they wear, use or eat. You gotta supply IPs for all those tracking devices.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
better quality audio and faster video streaming. nuff said
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
I'll be damned if I'm going to sit appliances in my home on a public IP address, especially if Microsoft has anything whatsoever to do with the software under their hoods-- I'd rather not have some punk kid setting my hot water heater's thermostat to "Boil" from his bedroom in Uzbekistan while I'm at work.
...should only be pushing out files, no?
I consider myself a technophile. I've got a lot of gear at home and I'm in the process of putting a number of sensors and controls on the internet.
However, the last thing I'd do is put each device out on it's own IP for the world to see. Wouldn't it be great fun for hackers to find an exploit in the new GE refrigerator and go spoiling all the food in every apartment in NewYork during the heat of summer? As if it didn't smell enough...
Even if I had 100 devices at home, each one would just have a port mapped from my gateway device (a $200 WalMart special running RH9). I seriously doubt I'm going to have around 65k devices that need to be exposed to the net.
So, my cell may have it's own IP, and maybe my car, but that's still just 3 internet IP addresses for a technophile. Any other web enabled gadgets I want can be routed through the Home/Car/Cell connection.
I really see no problem here. Besides, even though web enabled devices will spread from the techies out to main stream consumers, we're still talking upper middle class and up. And mostly just in the US/Canada/EU/Japan.
I could see 3 to 10 IPs per person tops, and that's far from a crisis.
Now, you could argue, more sites and businesses on the net will take up more addresses, but many of the hosting solutions I've looked at offer a "virtual" server on a shared physical box, probably using host headers and such (neat trick, read the host header and redirect the requests to a specific site based upon the URL in the request, even IIS does it).
DONT PANIC
... any day now. Been hearing this since 1996 how we will all make the move to IPv6. Don't see this happing quickly and just really don't care at this point.
Suppose we will be talking up IPv7 or IPv8 someday though.
> a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number,"
If it's so far in excess of 35 trillion, why was 35 trillion even mentioned? If it's between 35-36 trillion, then those are the words to describe it. If it really IS far in excess of 35 trillion, why bring it up at all? Just say "more than we will use in the considerable future," or some other equally vague phrase.
There's something with IPv6 addres mentioned in article:
traceroute to 2001:0418:000C:0003:0000:CF00:C0A8:2E2E (2001:418:c:3:0:cf00:c0a8:2e2e) from 3ffe:8010:18:10::1, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
1 3ffe:8010:18:10::1:1 (3ffe:8010:18:10::1:1) 59.674 ms 7.615 ms 6.824 ms
2 amba6.bydg.pdi.net (3ffe:8010:18:1::1) 67.952 ms 71.454 ms 69.572 ms
3 6bone-gw.6bone.pl (3ffe:8010:18::1) 69.778 ms 71.762 ms 69.695 ms
4 from-icm.6bone.atman.pl (3ffe:8010:9f::2:1) 79.676 ms 76.49 ms 69.673 ms
5 3ffe:81d0:ffff:2:: (3ffe:81d0:ffff:2::) 380.154 ms 438.2 ms 429.549 ms
6 fe-tu0.pao.ipv6.he.net (3ffe:81d0:ffff:1::1) 409.868 ms 545.375 ms 539.485 ms
7 * * *
8 * * *
;->
:wq
This seems like a ploy by this "Charmed Technologies" to grab headlines. 100 IP Addresses per person? I would imagine we might need this someday, but when you follow the link to the Charmed Tech website you start to understand why that guy thinks this is an immediate need. They are trying to sell wearable computers and IP enabled sunglasses.
This seems like a sky is falling news release to get their name out there and get people thinking about wearable computing.
I wouldn't get too upset about it as it were. But this is no reason not to think about IP6 as we are going to need it eventually.
...and yet my broadband provider still rapes and plunders me every month for my own static IP?
You know, that's the idea that supposedly went into the decision behind the 3-3-4 split for phone numbers in the US (and the NANP by extension). People can remember numbers that are in that general area. This is getting stretched a bit thanks to the requirement to dial 10 digits in some areas, but the general idea applies.
Look at IPv4. I can remember just about all of the important IP addresses in my life. The systems at work, my routers, my stuff at home, and then some. They're short numbers, and they are all within a couple of simple blocks.
Now look at a typical IPv6 address. It's scary. There's a lot of stuff going on there. 8 blocks of 16 bits? That's pretty dense in terms of information storage. I can't imagine remembering them.
Look at it this way: how many MAC addresses do you remember? Those are only 48 bits. IPv6 is 128. Ouch.
My unscientific reason for why IPv6 hasn't taken off is that the numbers look scary and people feel unconfortable when looking at them. I sure do. It would be different if there was a pressing reason for me to change, but there isn't, so why should I bother trying to learn these things?
"we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being."
I need 100 IP's? Then why does my ISP still try and charge me when I want more than one, those bastards they're ripping me off!?!?!
Ok ISP's make with the 99 other IP addy's!
Is that right? Lessee:
2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6
A number which everyone knows should be verbally expressed in English as:
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 sixy eight million two hundred eleven thousand four hundred fifty six.
That's in the American naming system, of course. In the British system, it would be:
Three hundred forty sexillion two hundred eight two thousand three hundred sixty six quintillion nine hundred twenty thousand nine hundred thirty eight quadrillion four hundred sixty three thousand four hundred sixty three trillion three hundred seventy four thousand six hundred seven billion four hundred thirty one thousand seven hundred sixty eight million two hundred eleven thousand four hundred fifty six.
(Interesting to note that the British version is nine characters shorter, plus has the capability to scale much higher without extension).
In the interest of brevity, I shall forgo the Spanish, Italian and French versions, and I regret to say that I can't count that high in any other languages, though I'm certain it's possible.
So, I think the number is *quite* adequately named, thank you. Now there's not a single word for it, but few numbers have single-word names, simply because there are too many numbers, too few phonemes and no real need. If you want a single-word approximation, "undecillion" should do nicely, or "340 undecillion", since Mr. Christman seems to find that form acceptable. The ideal expression is, of course, "two to the hundred twenty eighth", which is short, completely accurate and gives a strong hint as to the origin of the value (a string of 128 bits).
Yes, I *am* the guy everyone avoids at parties.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A google is a very big number
and if you take 1 and put a google of 0's after it, youve got a googleplex, so lets not say there not a word big enough for it.
Some devices weren't meant to be remote-controlled. And by some, I mean most. And even if they need to be, they don't need separate global IP's. People seem to forget that each of these 4 billion ipv4's have 65535 TCP ports.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
Hmm, not sure about the "running out by 2000" part, because the original article is long gone, but here is a Slashdot story from May 12, 1999.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I don't think IPv4 addresses will run out by 2005, especially as more and more people/organizations implement more NAT. I work for a statewide ISP, and we've found that the new IP addresses we just got from ARIN a year ago are being returned to us in large numbers (thousands) by customers who are now persuing NAT solutions and using smaller subnets of 16 addresses or less.
I was wondering why the transition to IPv6 hasn't happened yet... I can't just switch my computer because 1) my ISP doesn't know anything about IPV6; 2) my software is half-baked with respect to IPv6 support; and 3) none of the big sites are on IPv6.
I was wondering why nobody was "taking the plunge".
Then I read this article by DJ Bernstein.
Ignore the general "djb-ness" of the article (i.e., I'm djb, I'm smarter than you, you assmunch), I suggest everyone read this carefully.
Basically he is saying that there is NO clear path from here to IPv6 nirvana. And I totally agree, this is what I was feeling all this time.
There is one addendum I would make though: IPv6 can happen globally when Microsoft decides to make it the standard. They are the only ones who can "centrally plan" the entire computer industry. Sad, yes.
Do we want IPv6ms?
Personally I vote for making NAT *much* more pervasive. Why does every ISP customer need an IP address, etc.?
The only valid complaint about NAT I hear is that it breaks FTP.... B. F. D.
Your computer is seeking an IP Address! You may be at risk!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
when you see IP in the headline and think intellectual property instead of internet protocol
Tk
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Of course we'll run out of IPv6 addresses.
... but surely something will be invented that calls for more addresses.
Not right away
For example, teleportation might require separate addressing for all possible energy states of all elementary particles in the teleported object.
Don't say it can't happen. Remember when 64k was all the memory anyone would ever need? and a megabyte hard drive was out of your price range?
-kgj
Even if the Internet were IPV6, Adelphia would still only give me only one IP, and tell me not to put servers or a home network behind it. (Although for boku bux they'd rent me a garden-variety NAT box, and then let me have a home network.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...fscking RoadRunner will still charge me extra for using more than 3 IP addresses.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
googolplex? hey, isn't that the name of that new movie theatre that's going up? :D
ed
640K should be good enough for anyone.
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
SCO has announced plans to license their IP to the world at large, for only a small monthly fee...
-m
I can't wait for all the new fat jokes -- That guys ass has it's own IPv6 address.
Sure is nice to be a thin computer nerd
here's just a thought! how about every person gets an IP assigned to them via their ISP. once that IP has been given to the customer, if they want to use their cell, pda, blackberry, pager, what ever they need to use to get to the internet, they must go through that IP address and run NAT. so basically, each customer would be a gateway themselves for all of their devices. not to say that this will solve the IPv4 vs IPv6 issues but it may help reduce some of those needless IP assignments to people with a /20 that only need 2 addresses.
Everyone defines millions and billions the same.
The definition of the "giga" and "mega" prefixes vary though. Sometimes "giga" is 1024^3, sometimes it's 10^9. Mega is defined as either 1024^2 or 10^6.
This isn't US-specific. Typically, the following use the power-of-1024 definitions:
OSes, semiconductor storage (RAM/flash/ROM)manufacturers.
The following usually use base-10 definitions
All other storage mfrs. (Looks better on spec, and non-semiconductor storage isn't bound by practical constraints to being a power of 2), bandwidth measurements
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
try:
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-five.
I can't believe how many people have commented that there is no need for IPV6 because of NAT. Are you really willing to put up with the limits of NAT when you could give every computer its own routable address?
NAT does a decent job of allowing you to surf the web using a non-routable IP address. For anything more advanced it starts working less and less well.
I, personally have had many troubles with NAT:. Games which don't work properly unless they have huge ranges of ports exposed to the net. Instant messenger apps which fail in subtle ways. Brain-dead DHCP servers which don't properly pass on DNS settings, etc. Add to that the fact that the DHCP/NAT combination in most consumer boxes (like Liksys routers) is awful. You can port-forward from the router to a fixed IP address, but if you're using DHCP, you never know what machine will get that IP address! Even when it does work, there are far too many programs that don't work right when something is on a non-standard port.
In fact, I don't just want each of my machines to have its own routable IP address, I want some machines to have multiple addresses. That way I can host multiple domains on a single machine and truly administer them differently. Right now HTTP sends a host neader so that you can have multiple domains on a single IP and things just work. On the other hand, HTTPS doesn't work like this, so you need a work-around if you want to use HTTPS. The simple truth is that today if you want to have multiple domains using anything other than straight HTTP on a single machine you really do need multiple IPs.
For many people, NAT is a comfort thing. They think they don't have to worry about patching their systems because they're behind a dinky broadband router. Hint: that's security through obscurity. The devices you're buying aren't meant as firewalls, they're meant to let joe-consumer connect two computers to the Internet easily.
The main reason I want IPV6 now is so that my damn Internet provider can't get away with charging extra for extra IP addresses. At the moment they can because they're relatively scarce, but I can't see them getting away with that with IPV6.
If you're content with your buggy whip, that's great. But I personally have a use for at least 20 IPs that NAT won't solve. So don't make a blanket statement that IPV6 isn't necessary. Maybe not for you, but some of us can't wait to have it.
I'm not an expert on IPv6 (nor IPv4 for that matter), but there is some practicality in question here.
Can you memorize 204.172.4.36? Maybe not at first glance, but after you type it in a few times, you probably will.
Can you memorize FEDC:BA98:7654:3210:FEDC:BA98:7654:3210? Definitely not at first glance, and very unlikely unless it is something which you must type every day.
Some people's jobs depend on entering IP addresses, and IPv6 addresses are just so unnecessarily long that typing them is a total drag.
---
Here's my RFC. 40-bit addresses. That gives you roughly a trillion addresses (a bit more actually), which is more than we should ever need. And you can write them in dotted-decimal format.
Can you memorize 430.168.957.249? Probably.
Actually, what we need are more port numbers. Limiting port numbers to 16 bits limits use to less than 65536 different classes of applications. Go try to register a well known service to get a port number for your remote toothbrush loading protocol. You might have a somewhat easier time registering the remote coffee heatup protocol.
Now, should we go with 32 bits for port numbers? Or do we face a looming port number exhaustion crisis in a couple decades and need to go with 64 bits?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Greed, stupidity and pride.
1)keeping up with the Jones
If your company is big clearly you need a class A
If your company has a class A then clearly you are big.
2)heading them off at the pass
You may need more public IPs in the future, but some bastards are hording them. So Grab some before other people can.
3)Bob is your uncle
We need some IPs (see I'm doing my job, I know stuff)
no word for a number bigger than 35 trillion?
s .survey/index.html
how did astronomers come up with 70 sextillion then?
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/star
another "we're running out of IPs" story. as taco would say, "whatever, next."
Fast forward 50 or 100 years... Everyone has Internet-enabled tools, chairs, glasses... whatever, because everything has a RFID inside, because the TPAA (Things producers Ass. of A.) wants to track everything, because some geeks have found a use to a connection between my pen and my fridge, because it is so easy and cheap...
1) BUT this tendency to Internet-enable everything will expand to any file on my computer. A CD has a RFID/IP to connect it to the desk, why not every of my MP3? Why a book and not on e-book ? A computer will needs millions of IP addresses.
2) Worse: we'll finish as virtual beings in the in virtual words (think Ultima Online in 2100). And we'll want everything in this world to have Internet addresses too. I'll ask my little desktop computer to create my own little Matrix, for me alone... and everything there has an address of the IPv6 space (to help me interconnect the real and the virtual world).
And if it's not enough:
3) Cyber beings (a few billions humans, much much much virtual intelligent creatures) find the world rather small for so many entities. Not enough computers on this small planet to compute all the worlds that each entity wants created for itself (and to run the compilation of the 10^15 lines of the brand new Linux 2.80.0). So the Metamegamatrix expands to Jupiter, Saturn and creates a Dyson sphere aroud the Sun, converting every joule of energy into computational power for the simulation.
And in 2203, Slashdot makes headlines on IPv9 with 2048 bits addresses.
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
I think you mean beaucoup.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I could even call the toilet to see if anyone is using it.
MIT got there first: http, finger.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
Actually it's "0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1", but in IPv6 you can represent a series of zero octets with a pair of colons. (You can only do it once though, beause otherwise how could you determine where the middle octet in "2002::19ef::127" is?)
::127:0:0:1 as an IPv4-compatible loopback address.
Google also found a mention of a proposal to define
Jay (=
How I miss visiting Usenet and content outnumbering SPAM. NAT actually makes locating spammers harder. Most companies (and people) using NAT do not track the connections made through that NAT gateway, thus a spammer behind the gateway would be pretty safe for a while. Well, as long as they don't do excessive spamming over long periods. Unique IP addresses make tracking a bit easier, as it's easier to point a Dial-Up user (for example) from the logs even after a long period of time, than it is to point a user behind a NAT gateway even few minutes after the incident.
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: IPV4 is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered IPV4 community when
recently IDC confirmed that IPV4 accounts for less than a fraction of 1
percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft
survey which plainly states that IPV4 has lost more market share, this
news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. IPV4 is collapsing
in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last
[samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict IPV4's
future. The hand writing is on the wall: IPV4 faces a bleak future. In
fact there won't be any future at all for IPV4 because IPV4 is dying.
Things are looking very bad for IPV4. As many of us are already aware,
IPV4 continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of
blood. Natted IPV4 is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of
its core developer
I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!
What if I need a hundred and 1 IP addresses...?
For those who think IPv4 NAT is good enough, these are the drawbacks as compared with IPv6:
1) NAT breaks the end-to-end connection model of IP
2) NAT keeps a stateful connection table. If a NAT device is rebooted or looses its' configuration, the connection mappings are lost.
3) NAT prohibits end-to-end security as the IP header can't be modified.
4) If you use a 10.0.0.0/8 on one end of a network, and want to connect via NAT to another 10.0.0.0/8 network, you can't do it. Imagine connecting to a friends nat'd device when it uses the same IP schema as you use.
5) Servers on the NAT subnet can't use the same external port (say 80). Externally, they must map to 80 and 81. If the number of servers in the NAT network is large, you can easily run out of NAT IP TCP/UDP Ports.
NAT is good, but IPv6 is better.
Bring on IPv6. Check out HS247 for more information.
"and the expectation that everything from your phone to your washing machine will soon have its own IP address" Didn't people realize that there is no point in connecting their washing machine to the internet? And even if they want to, they don't have to get it an individual IP, they can just have it running on the house lan? I have four people in my house connecting to the internet with one IP. While I think getting more IP's is nice, I think that "your dishwasher/washing machine/toaster will need an IP" comment is really dated.
I'm gonna subnet like it's 255.255.255.254.
"we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being."
:P
Exactly. In just a few years, Ethermopians are going to all have computers, cellphones, PDAs, etc. Lol. Guffaw, even. That's a good one.
I consider myself pretty technology-elite, and of all the IP-run devices in my house, it only takes on IP thanks to NAT. I, for one, think the crisis of IPv4 will be solved by a combination of IPv6 and NAT, not just IPv6, and I'd bet some change that a) we won't run out of IPs as fast as "they" say we will, and b) even if we did, IPv6 wouldn't be implemented by the time "they" think it will be needed.
/enjoy that link
You could just do what some girl I know did... She had a spreadsheet with all of the IP's for the network on it. She was assigning them in ascending order and was around .250. I asked her what she was going to do when she ran out of IP's, and she said it was OK, because she had the spreadsheet numbered to .300. :)
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Do the math, people:
2^128 = 3.4028236692093846346337460743 * 10^38
Even Cisco got it wrong in one of its technology articles. The author claimed that it was "four times" the size of IPv4.
*sigh*
Actually, there are words for really large numbers. And 2^128 isn't that large.
Here is the full number:
340282366920938463463374607431768211456
and here is how you pronounce it in the american system:
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
or in the European system:
three hundred forty sextillion,
two hundred eighty two quintilliard,
three hundred sixty six quintillion,
nine hundred twenty quadrilliard,
nine hundred thirty eight quadrillion,
four hundred sixty three trilliard,
four hundred sixty three trillion,
three hundred seventy four billiard,
six hundred seven billion,
four hundred thirty one milliard,
seven hundred sixty eight million,
two hundred eleven thousand,
four hundred fifty six
try it yourself
IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number," says Cody Christman
Well let's take a look. IPv6 looks like this:
2001:0418:000C:0003:0000:CF00:C0A8:2E2E
So the highest number is 16^32, right? Which is roughly 3.4028 x 10^38.
Which is a little over 340 undecillion. Want it exact? It's 340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion, 463 sextillion, 463 quintillion, 374 quadrillion, 607 trillion, 431 billion, 768 million, 211 thousand, 456.
Plenty for everybody!
Check out more names of big numbers.
.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
somehow i think its naive to think that something like ipv6 will solve everything. it seems that whenever there's greater capacity, the capacity gets used one way or another. so if ip4 gives every person 100 ip's and ip6 gives everyone, say, 100000 ip's someone will make a killer app that relies on the heuristic of there being a large number of cheap ip addresses for each person and you're back to square one. i dont think when they made ip4 they were thinking of coke machines and palm pilots with ip addresses.
so perhaps the solution is a protocol which includes a "scaling protocol" so that one can simply add more ip addresses when necessary, automatically and implicitly in the protocol without breaking anything. the number of addresses would be unbounded. or for instance rather than having 4 bytes be the address, perhaps a "start byte" then an arbitrary number of bytes and then a "stop byte." sounds like a triviality. whats the flaw?
Doesn't the Heisenberg compensator eleminate the need for particle addressing?
It should, according to Star Trek: the Next Generation. But the Uncertainty Principle suggests that we shouldn't rely on fictional stuff to come true.
-kgj
Fridges are devices designed to maintain cool temperatures within an enclosed space. That is all they do, yet only a very few, really high-end models are actually controlled by a thermostat. If fridges aren't equipped with the thing that would let them best do what they are made for, why would we realistically expect them to get an IP address, for {deity/obscenity]'s sake?
Oh wait, marketing...
Cheers, Paul
That would be us here at MIT. And you can pry it out of our cold dead hands.
I've always thought it worked just fine. Is there something more that it should be doing, you know, other than providing me with the remote access I enjoy? Fetching my coffee perhaps?
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
>IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion
:)
>that is "so big that there's not a word for the number,"
Said with the same confidence that Gates used when announcing that 640KB memory should be enough for anyone...
IP is a fad.
Remember X.25.
Anyone know the RFC that covers those napalm packs? I don't want the cyber-deck I'm building to be out of spec.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
I mean, how many people will buy and install Trumpet Winsock to get IPv6 on their Windows 98 machines versus just upgrading to XP?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
There are *huge* swaths of IPv4 space allocated to defunct organizations, wasted in various unallocated space, etc. Take the /8s, for example... I doubt *any* company with a /8 utilizes more than a tiny fraction of that space. There are *dozens* of /16s that aren't even routed. IPv4 could be stretched out for quite some time if ARIN were to actually do something besides collect checks.
I think people really have their thumbs up their butts when it comes to NAT in the home.
;-)
I mean think about it, so some people need to recieve files and go all other 'special incoming packet' activity, well fine. Put your computer on the NATs DMZ. Problem Solved.
I mean, if you think about it and all the issues brought up in this story come true, why would your washing machine need any access from the outside? If anything, keeping non-routable IPs on applications outside of your desktop PC should be welcomed! I'd be pissed if someone put my silk sheets on high insted of delicate!
My point is, I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to NAT in the home. If you want extra IPs, pay for them. If not, Proxy and help save an IP for someone else.
If DNS were extended to:
1. Enable more service lookups (like the MX records)
2. return not only an IP address, but also a port number,
much more sharing of IP addresses could be achieved. Imagine this: you want to connect to an SSH server. Your lookup requests the IP/port for the SSH server with name . Then your ssh client connects accordingly.
Since we now have stateful firewalls, the difficulty of using random port numbers in firewalls can be accommodated.
Perhaps we might want to limit the port ranges for known services to make things a little easier on firewall configuration.
On the other hand, this would require changes to thousands of client programs to support the port lookup, so maybe it's a crazy idea.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The only problem here is that everyone is using too many IPv4 addresses. Why does every appliance or computer you own need to have a public IP address? It would better if they all have private addresses behind a firewall. If your washing machine (snort) needs to be accessed from the outside, you can simply forward the "washing machine" port on your one public IP address to your washing machine device.
We also need to get the big corporations to give back the IP addresses we gave them back in the days when we thought we had an unlimited supply of IP addresses. HP alone has 16 million public IP addresses. (That's the equivalent of all addresses in the 10.0.0.0 network) So every computer in their company has its own public IP address, even though most are behind a firewall. The 10.0.0.0 network was invented for a reason!
/usr/bin/complain >
First off I didn't even fucking mention IPv6, I was just talking about the merits of NAT... and hold on now, because this is a hard concept, FOR THE AVERAGE USER.
How many average Windows users you know run real firewalls? Thought so, prick. And even if those users do run some shitty firewall, they probably still don't have any idea how it works. And not everybody has $70 to throw around here and there.
Oh, you run a private network? WOW. No really, CHRIST I'M AMAZED.
Then onto the subjects of ISPs. Notice I said BROADBAND ASSHOLE. Most cable broadband providers DO WANT YOU TO PAY PER MACHINE. THEY REQUIRE YOU TO GET AN IP FOR EVERY MACHINE. NO NAT. GOT IT ASSFACE?
Oh, of course... new ISP. Oh wait, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD? How many broadband ISPs where you live jackass? Most places have ONE cable provider. Then the other option is to go with a bullshit telco DSL line where they charge you $80/mo for a line slower than cable (oh yeah it's dedicated, big fucking whoop) and very often with RIDICULOUSLY LOW DOWNLOAD AND UPLOAD QUOTAS.
We don't all live in your fucking fantasy world. And anyway, anyone who would brag about running a home network is a fucking little bitch who doesn't know anything about anything. So fuck you.
Your response didn't even have anything to do with the parent, or indeed reality.
Go ahead, mod me down. Who gives a fuck.
In the future, everything from automobiles to home appliances will be connected to the Internet, Mr. Lightman said, "and we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being."
1. Bullshit.
2. Why?
I'll never, ever have need of 100 IP addresses. One is all I need. My router handles all my computer needs.
I don't need nor do I want a toaster or refrigerator or a toilet with an IP address. My car doesn't need one (it's 28 years old anyway) and my cell phone doesn't need one. And when my son moves off to college next month I'm disconnecting my home phone and will only use my cell phone. Assigning IP addresses to household appliances is STUPID. Can you say ABUSE??
Can you say PRIVACY?? I have about 7 or 8, maybe a few more PC's here at home but those are the ONLY modern things I use. Everything else I own and use is OLD/LOW tech and *I* retain total control over everything in my home.
Maybe professor Warwick is masturbating to the idea of a connected world but a lot of us are not..
The number, 2^128, or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6, can be read as:
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.
That's a lot of IP addresses.
It is the third characteristic that that will enable the killer app effect. If PC had not already been comoditised when Lotus was introduced, it would not have been a killer app. Netscape misses, because even though it was the most practical, it was not the only practical way of "surfing the net".
Now with that out of the way, I can get to my main point.
as with all pure tech - it needs that killer app
Man has been adopting new tech since we became man. The initial adoption pattern is almost always exponential, though the existance of several compeating technologies can make things interesting. If several compeating technologies share characteristics that are mutualy exclusive ( e.g. PCs and Macs both use software, but the software for one will not run naturaly on the other), the adoption pattern becomes somewhat unstable. This unstability can lead to catastrophies which pave the way for a killer app. But I digress. What happened with the PC was an unique phenonmina. It had never been seen befor. The term "killer app" was coined to describe the cause of that phenomina. In other words, it describes something that deviates from normal. So the concept that new tech needs a killer app to be adopted is just plain wrong.
good luck finding that app
Since the term "killer app" was first coined, people have beeen running around trying to find the next "killer app". Tech writers have been speculating on the nature of the next "killer app". But guess what, when the next killer app arrives, no one will recognise it as such untill after it has done its killing. That the potentialy killer nature of an app is knowable, probably precludes it from being a killer app. I would have included this as a characteristic of killer apps, but I have not proved it to be true. At this point, I concider it a conjecture. Anyway, one can identify the tech platforms that have characteristics which allow then to be affected by a killer app. And its not the desktop!
educating users what it is, and what it does.
Because of certain technological synergies, 3G, is the most likely area to be affected by some killer app. If this happens, no one will have predicted it. I feel that the potential for the arrival of a killer app is very high. I also feel that the definition of killer app might need to be tweeked a bit to include a set of apps from several sources that people start using together. The most likely place for this to happen is in the highschools. Its the users that will define the next killer app.
But only 1/6th of the screen for text in online articles. Even Slashdot is more readable than the Times.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Fortunately, the IPv6 address space can provide for a lot more than 100 per person. By many orders of magnitude.
With 3.4^38 IPs even your home networks will need DNSing for you to find anything, nobody s going to remember that
fe80::a34b:44f2:3905:932c is the fridge while
fe80::a34b:5c32:3905:932c is the printer
Even with a DNS over the internet site names will run out far before addresses do. Using ever permitation of alphanumaric characters for the site name it will take 25 characters to map every address. You try telling someone that your site is www.sutdjosntajutsnelsynzpref.org advertizing will be hell.
I particularly thought this statement was ludicrous: "every new washing machine, for instance, could have its own IP address, allowing it to alert a service person electronically of a needed repair before it stopped working in the middle of a cycle." This is utter nonsense. Devices such as these don't need fixed IP addresses. They could be allocated on damand, or hang off a single IP, whenever needed, as is already being done all over the place. The guy acknowledges this, and his redactor exampled is a friggen washing machine??? How remarkably stupid. Moreover, while IP address are limited to 32 bits, the concept of ports multiplies this by 65536! (Granted some ports are reserved.) This amounts to more than 280 trillion unique socket addresses. A given device (like a washer, or your toaster) doesn't need all the ports to a single fixed IP, even if it had a fixed IP which it doesn't need in the first place. Another non-problem to not worry about.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
I believe the correct word for the number may be frooglepoopilion.
Come nanotech and the colonization of the solar system, that won't be nearly enough.
I, for one, do not want all of the devices in my home and/or office to be reachable by just anyone on the public Internet. I would be much happier with an architecture based on some sort of household gateway and a standard way for a device that needs external access to install an interpreted service proxy module on the gateway. The module can be as simple as port fowarding, or quite complex. But I want the added security that I believe an interpreted environment will provide. Modules written in Java would be fine.
How much does it cost me to get an IP address for a year? About $150 including server space.
Where I used to work (on-site gov't contractor) each machine had a "real IP". That's nothing 192.168.1.* can't fix. The issue is with the way people purchase huge blocks of IPs at once. If we'd stop selling 134.*.*.* to one entity, we'd be fine for a while longer.
From one of the linked articles:
In one solution, a single IP address is assigned to an entire network, which then gives out its own addresses to the devices attached to it.
But such approaches are not long-term solutions, said Alex Lightman, chairman of a conference... to discuss the next generation of IP addressing, known as Internet Protocol version 6, or IPv6.
I think Mr. Lightman is being a bit alarmist. There's no reason any ISP needs more than one IP.
At any rate, as long as any schmoe can go and purchase an IP at an ISP/web host for nuttin', I can't imagine we're even close to out and that there aren't millions of IPs that we can consolidate before we get so alarmist.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
The IP address space will be exhausted in the GREAT IP CRUNCH OF 2010.
Right on.
-kgj
When people are connected to the Internet, they usually obtain one public IP, usually not static. If the fridge, the DVD player, the printer, gets its own IP, it will be a private one, NAT-ed, and somewhat protected from the outside.
The IPv6 world won't know NAT, as its goal is somewhat to destroy it. Someone from Australia could connect to my fridge if everything in house becomes connected. It all becomes wireless, you'll even forget that your camera is on the net. Even with a much greater address space, we'll all need to firewall our connections.
I suppose that easy-to-use firewalls will be in every home in a few years. Still, any failure in programming them, any exploit in a well-known brand, could lead to a disaster for people much greater than having its computer hacked: fridge at 20C, heating at 40C, camera becoming a public webcam, TV and DVD giving back what you've seen yesterday, palm giving your agenda to the world...
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
Hey! Imagine a beowulf cluster of those! I could get inventory for hundreds of gallons of milk in microseconds!
This sig no verb.
Maybe if MIT and the such would gibe up the Class A's they horde....
All your subnets are still belong to me...
From an article on rediff.com: "According to a study by a team of stargazers based at the Australian National University, there are 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70,000 million million million, or 70 sextillion) stars in the known universe."
:-)
That's 2^76. Leaving only 2^52 addresses per system...and that's assuming perfect routing.
A speech...
I can say that once IPv6 is widely adopted the biggest beneficiary will be companies making networking gear.
This is due to the fact much of the hardware handling the world's Internet traffic are NOT IPv6 compatible. It could result in a major economic boom for networking companies as telecom companies around the world, web host providers, software companies and others scramble to enable IPv6 support. I'd hold on to shares of Cisco, Nortel Networks, etc. because they could really boom as the scramble to buy IPv6-compatible networking hardware takes off.
A few years ago I worked for a business oriented web hosting company (which also disappeared a little later in the dot.bomb crisis.)
At the time, we were trying to buy up a considerable chunk of IP addresses from another company that had already gone tits-up. Due to bankruptcy courts, etc, the sale never went through.
My question is, how many IP ranges are still out there that were purchased up, but never accounted for, or added back to the available population?
If a company did fold, but held a chunk of IP addresses, how long can they sit in limbo before they are re-released back into "the wild"?
I guess my bottom line question is: Are we really running out in 2005 due to a lack of availability, or mismanagement?
and HPQ really should be forced to return at least one of them, not?
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
n/t
This space available.
not to confuse this with the food or fuel crisis. This seems to be a much worse problem!
I know this is news for nerds but don't you think they play this up a little bit too much you would think the internet had come to an end.
Yeah its flame bait but so is everything thats posted on slashdot.
I know of 65,000+ addresses which might be made available for the right price.
The CB App. What's your 20?
... who needs 100 IPs?
Sod IPv6. Feed the world.
I know that this is somewhat OT, but I had to share. If this works out (I mean when), we will need some sort of hostname system to handle it. I propose something like this:
/ La stName.UserName/FirstName.Device Type.Identifier
c ro soft.BillGates.Computer.Work
c o. Pirillo.Chris.Computer.Main
Continent.Country.Province/State.City.OwnerName
For example:
NorthAmerica.UnitedStates.Washington.Redmond.Mi
But wait! There's more! If Bill Gates wanted to call up Steve Ballmer, this is all he would need:
SteveBallmer.Phone.Main
You see, you leave off the parts that are redundant.
Here's a wholesome family example:
NorthAmerica.UnitedStates.California.SanFransis
to (IP phone, FTP, whatever)
Gretchen.Computer.Main
It's actually pretty simple, but please tell me how to improve it
BTW the same could be used for a numeric system by making country and area codes
NAT. You get to reuse the IP's! Imagine that!
Hook me up with them 100 ips right now! FUTURE BE DAMNED!
-makoffee
There are more than enough IPv4 addresses. They only run out because the smallest allocation is a /19 because old ciscos couldn't cope with large routing tables. IPv6 increases the memory requirement for the routing table by a factor of 4 and so most routers that are just copeing with full tables now, could not deal with the same routers using IPv6 without more memory. Keep in mind that many of thouse routers are still at a point where they can't have more memory added.
/26, there aren't too many of them.
/24 and a router had 15 interfaces it should take 8 megabytes of memory to determine where each packet goes and with content addressable memory (like used in cache), that decision would take much less than 2ns.
The problem is all based on how routes are selected. In most cases, there is only one outbound route and a default route works great. Core routers need huge tables but they have custom hardware to deal with that situation. That leaves the dual homed small businesses but since you can't dual home a
If the entire world was divided into
The problem isn't running out of addresses, the problem is poor methods of dealing with the routing tables and that is only going to get worse with IPv6. It the routeing gets fixed, there are enough addresses for a very long time.
The only time I've ever actually heard the word "undecillion", was when I typed a huge number in the SBTALKER.EXE text-to-speech program, which came with my Ueber-31337 Sound Blaster 2.0. Now that's a long time ago.
And it supports IPv6. Too bad it's much more bloated than 12.2(x)T.
/Styx
2002:50a5:c5a1:2::10
That's the IPv6 address of one of my machines.
Oh, and besides: that's what the DNS is for anyway.
/Styx
I wanted to post a story the other day ... it didnt go through ... anyway ... i was wondering about the total costs of switching over to ipv6 ... i assume IANA works in a supply and demand basis ... v6 will provide such supply that if they do indeed work with sup/dem. ... the prices would reach rock bottom. thus ... the cost of having lines would drop ... but ... will home consumers see some of those savings?
...")
... im just wondering.
or is the whole switch complicated enough to actually cost what they save on IP's?
or, yet again, will they totally ignore the possibility of lowering their prices?
yet another possibility, could they even boast prices because the switch was _that_ complicated.
("for administrative reasons blah blah blah
anyway
cheers
and then "ask me to dress up and do the dirty 4g dance for you". what a twit. Professional experience .... "coming soon". bout time bucko - you don't look like you're getting any younger. sooooo 1999.
not this lame crapola again?
/.ers would at least have *some* technical sense and have known about ipv8 by now...
;)
can we get the main posting modded down?
I mean, come on, we keep hearing this BS...
and BTW, ipv6 is obsolete, I thought
I mean, ipv16 is already out...
ipv6 is beyond ancient. get with the program already!
PS- I "own" a class-b, so whatcha gonna do about it?
...surprise, surprise. 35 trillion ipv6 addresses are not enough.
That's certainly a loaded statement. Now allow me to explain.
Most slashdot readers are aware of the application of IPV6 addresses having to do with computing. Getting more information on military applications of IPV6 helps to fill in a bit of the knowledge gaps on the issue. But you need more information to understand the full breadth of the issue, and the problems that will crop up with even IPV6.
About 15 years ago, I joined the UPC council, and registered my small business so that I could receive a manufacturer upc 5 digit number, allowing me to place upc numbers and bar codes on my company's products. That gave me a unique 5 digit number for my company, a single digit at the beginning that was either pre-determined for the industry, or was calculated (I forget which), plus the full selection of 5 digit numbers after my unique 5 digit number for product, which gave me 100,000 unique product numbers, plus a single check digit, which the scanners used to make sure the full number was scanned correctly, the check digit being calculated from the other digits.
Why did I do this? Simple. The upc number (actually the bar code) was mandatory for me to get the product into the supermarkets. Previous to this, I was limited to selling my product in grocery stores that were individually owned. To get the product into chain-owned, or co-op owned grocery stores, and supermarkets, all of whom where already using scanners 15 years ago, I had to have bar code scanning ability on my product. Why did the chain stores and supermarkets want this? Back then, the single biggest argument, or selling point, of the scannners wasn't theft. It was the mistakes that the cashiers made. And not just in price. My product went into the produce section of supermarkets. Produce is the cash cow of supermarkets. The profit margins on produce are double and better in some of the supermarkets in my area. And the gross sales from produce is substantial. And the additional sales tied to customers who come in just for the produce is also substantial. I've sat in meetings where the Director of Operations, the Produce Supervisor, and other titles have told me that they actually (15 years ago) have tracked, both by upc scanning, and by actually physically following customers around, and watched while some customers purchased only the loss leaders from their sales flyers, and at the same time left the store to go shopping at other supermarkets across the street and down the block, to do the same at other supermarkets.
At these same meetings, with one or two of the better producing stores' produce managers present, I've seen the produce managers jumping up and down in their seats insisting on the upc bar codes, because the cashiers input the sale as "grocery dept" instead of "produce dept" for a product that they don't know which department it belongs to (like mine might be mistaken for, especially since some of the chains actually put it into the grocery department). And what happens when the cashiers put the sales of produce into the grocery deparment? It inflates the profit margin of the grocery department, and deflates the profit margin and sales of produce. They have weekly and monthly meetings on these figures, and compensation is tied to these stats.
Now let's get off the apples and oranges. Let's go back to the military for a second. Any guess that they will be issuing individual ipv6 numbers to tanks? Other large tranport vehicles? Ok. So there aren't that many tanks. You are aware that all the network devices will be getting them, including printers, routers, switches, and everything related. I'm sure keyboards, mice, and more will be thrown in as well. How about washers and dryers? They already have processors on board. Tie it to the network, screen popup on your pda (and later dick tracy watch) while you are next door getting a pizza, your wash is done.
How about coffee machines? Coffee is re
"we're going to need something like 100 IP addresses for each human being."
.com needed 255 ip's.
Sheesh and it was like an act of congress explaining to my isp that our
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
I must be stupid:
"IPv6 will increase the supply of addresses from 4 billion today to a number in excess of 35 trillion that is "so big that there's not a word for the number,""
Isn't the word for that number "more than 35 Trillion"?
He may be one of my better friends and a bit starkers but his V8 shit does work well and without the V6 hassles.
IP addresses are the least of my concerns.
Need Mercedes parts ?
once there are enough domains for every man woman and child in the net. those domains will be plentiful enough to be REGISTERED making your toaster, your washing machine, you, your cellphone pager fax etc everything trackable by its own IP. Not a good plan if you ask me. How long before I'll be forced to REGISTER my very own IP before I can use it on the net. The system is there. It just takes one disaster and a few stupid senators to bring it ALLLLL down. No more anonymity. It may sound like a conspiracy, but it CAN HAPPEN NOW. Your whole life tied into your personal registered IP address. Say wasn't that in the bible somewhere? :)
This doesn't seem at all like a CRISIS!
While I was in Germany last year, we had one PC in the house on the internet, and some of the people I know didn't even have computers on the internet.
The world isn't all like the US, where every middle-class family has an XBox, PS2, P2P Server, 2 Windows computers, and a laptop.
Some people in this world don't even have running water, in fact a great percentage. IPv4 is no crisis unless you need to have everything that uses electricity with an IP in your house
Error 407 - No creative sig found
How about an IP address for the RFID chips in your clothing?
That way your socks can tell your washing machine to ask the fridge to remind you to wash them whilst also emailing the NSA about you attending a meeting of [insert-fringe-organisation-currently-in-policial- disfavour-here] and your partner about the visit to the strip club afterwards. And obviously every CD (and CDplayer) will need it's own IP address so the embedded device (running WinCE) can connect back to the RIAA over the secret pervasive wireless network to tell them who's playing what as an antipiracy measure (the customer profiling use to allow them to send you even more junk mail is purely a side effect).
Anything I missed?
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
yeah, im a retard. I did notice it and thought I correcdted it... but as I said, im retarted.
Correct URL
more than 35 trillion per square meter of Earth
Are you kidding? That's more than 665,000 IPV6 addresses per square NANOMETER of the Earth's surface.
Even with a DNS over the internet site names will run out far before addresses do.
Sure they would - if it was a simple flat namespace. Maybe that's why the internet is hierarchical. Right now you usually have machine.domain.com. But there's no reason you can't use more levels, like dmv.state.ma.us.
So for your refrigerator, maybe it would be refrigerator.17312.main-street.mytown.mystate.us.
3.4^38 is not the same as 3.4*10^38 - not even close.
35 trillion address should be enough for everyone!
Thanks for browsing at -1
Please vistit my blog: www.framtiden.nu
I have been reading a couple of pages of this article. Beeing quite good at ipv4 i see the problem with it. Doing nat will only save ipv4 for some time. That is not a solution.
:-)
Today ipv6 is not used because nobody uses is. So its time to start using it!
So the real question how do i start using it. Today im on a student ipv4 network in sweden. Can i run ipv6 on it? How do i configure it etc etc. Anyone has any idees? Im runnig Linux and Windows
I agree with the others too. Why does a house hold need public IPs. NAT does work very well and does give some secutiry to the local network.
IP Addesses too cheap to meter!
-kgj
This whole FUD thing over an IPv4 crisis is unwarranted. A quick check of the IANA website shows that there are dozens of unallocated, IANA reserved A class of IP addresses remaining. We will not run out anything soon, and should be good for another 15 to 20 years. Plus, IPv6 has serious privacy implications that can trace every packet (essentially, every footprint) back to you. Until those privacy concerns are addressed and that Internet tracking mechanism is removed, we're fine with IPv4.
Slashdot needs to quit approving these scare stories. And that's all I have to say about that. Thanks.
Doug
Doug Mehus http://doug.mehus.info/
A shortage of IP addresses, even if partially solved by NATing, still creates an asymmetric internet. The big players with money will get an IP that anyone can connect to, and the smaller guys won't.
CmdrTaco started slashdot in his dormroom. The next slashdot will require a bigger initial investment (i.e., hosting or "business class" service); the $50 to $250 a month will stop people from experimenting with stuff like that.
The big ISPs are trying to feudalize the internet, and IPv6 could route around that.