Slashdot Mirror
US Shrugs Off World's IP Address Shortage
Clifton Griffin writes "C|Net has an article stating that the U.S. isn't making the push for IPv6 like others are even though the networking appliances and operating systems are ready for it. It goes on to explain that North America has 70% of the Internet address space and that there is a total of 1 billion IPs left, which may sound like a lot but considering we now have Internet-enabled cellphones and VoIP, it really isn't."
I wish I had a dime for every IP assigned to (and released from) my devices. God Bless America!/>
Wait a second, 1 billion is a lot of IPs. My web enabled phone has never been assigned an internet accessible IP address, it's on some kind of weird proxy service. My computers at work are on a NAT. So that leaves my computer at home, and it's had that "dynamic" IP assignment for months and months. No wonder we're shrugging it off. Get over it.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Until there is a benefit, why expend the resources.
If I have enough IP's why should I bother changing.
Actually the other people can take the risk, do the upgrade, solve the problems, then the cost to change is cheaper.
Once the benefit outweighs the cost, people will do it. It just doesn't make sense yet.
ipv6 (or a similar technology) will eliminate the demand for IPs (or the demand that ISPs claim there is).
Without demand for IP space there will be no longer a need to charge ridiculous amounts for IP blocks (or even single IPs). Hell, there won't be a need to bundle home routers with Internet service to give NAT capabilities to the home.
Looks like a lot of possible lost revenue. God forbid that happens.
$10 for an extra IP is the average cost for broadband (used to be about $5), most ISPs don't even want to give you a static IP (back in 1995 it cost $30/extra for a static IP on dialup!)
I have something like 1 million+ IPs assigned to me with IPv6 and I am using 10 (for what you ask? for vhosts because that's all IPv6 is useful for).
Would I be using more than the 1 IP I am "dynamically" assigned if it wasn't "free"? No.
do cell phones, refirgerators, and other "appliances" really need a dedicated static i.p. address? why can't they use NAT and private addresses?
Canned response 2: NAT is only good for outgoing.
Canned response 3: NAT is an easy way to secure machines.
Canned response 4: NAT is an abomination in the eyes of the Internet gods.
Canned response 5: Even when we have IPv6, ISPs will charge huge amounts for IP addresses.
If you write P2P software you will know that NAT is a major pain in the ass and requires very bizarre architectures involving reflectors owned and run by third parties (or at least port forwarding). More IP addresses cannot be a bad thing and we have to move sooner or later.
This Slashdot article reported that the impending IPv6 shortage is just a myth, and this Slashdot article repeated what CmdrTaco says. What is the real story here?
"It is a mathematical fact that the casting of this pebble from my hand alters the centre of gravity of the universe."
too bad IPv6 doesn't have DNS eh? Oh wait, it does.
You can have mine too - 192.168.0.1/24.
Seriously though, once the world starts to move to a IPv6 platform, then what will the corporations do with their non compatible routers and networking equipment?
Maybe companies in poorer countries could aquire it for their internal networking. Stuff like this is real costly right now.
I would love to see some real good networking stuff on ebay for cheap.
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
Does anyone know why we need more?
The world population currently stands at over 6 billion, and growing. If only 17% of the world uses simply one extra IP, then your supply is exhausted. Of course, this ignores issues generated by distributing IPs in blocks rather than individually, restricting certain IPs, etc.
Think of IPv6 as "preventative" medicine. Sure, you might feel healthy despite having a 44" waistline, smoking 3 packs a day, and consuming gallons of lard for breakfast each morning, but what do you do when you suddenly realize you should change? It's certainly not an instantaneous solution, and it's far better to have stopped the situation from happening in the first place.
Just because you have a Billion IP addresses available doesn't mean you can just get any one of those from the list and start using it. The IP addresses are assigned in blocks which correspond to networks. So to truely provide addresses for a global end-to-end IP network there are going to have to be a heck of a lot more addresses out there just to cover individuals not to mention all these devices people want to hook up. So, figure one or two IP addresses per person and we are already Billions short of the number needed. Figure more than that including remote sensing devices, routers, automated systems and oh yea businesses... then we are at a far greater shortage. Sure we can just add complexity and do some address translation, but are the conversion costs really that insurmountable as to make IPv6 out of reach? Most routers and computers have built in support for IPv6, but its seems that nobody is willing to ditch the old numbers and just use their IPv6 equivalents.
We aren't going to see a major shift in the US until Arin starts pushing Ipv6. The real problem is that currently getting Ipv6 costs money and doesn't get you very far. Look at it this way... currently a Ptla /32 costs $2500 a year. But people that have been sitting on Ipv4 blocks for years don't pay anything. I know of two Isp's that would like to offer Ipv6 the their customers but because they don't have their own Ipv4 netblocks they don't want to pay $2500 a year just so few of their customers have Ipv6. So instead of getting Ipv6 and moving away from Ipv4 they are forced to stay with Ipv4.
I think that the situation is currently backwards to the way it should be. Arin ( and other Ipv4 providers ) should be charging next to nothing for Ipv6 netbocks ($100 or so) and slowly start charging more for Ipv4 blocks each year. So for the first year charge $100 for each Ipv4 block (on top of any other fees). The second year they would charge 500 and the year after that 1000 and then 3000 and so on... Until we start charging more for Ipv4 address's than Ipv6 we will not see any major move to Ipv6. The more people that can get switched over to Ipv6 the sooner the better.
Tell MIT to give back their Class A, unless they *actually* have 24 million machines over there! There is no way a university needs that many IP addresses. I believe Stanford already gave up theirs because they realized it was unncessary.
An IPv6 address is a sequence of 8 16 bit numbers. It's usually written in hex with the numbers separated by colons e.g:
1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A
Apparently IPv4 only nodes are represented in the IPv6 space with the first 6 numbers being
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF
and the last two numbers containing the IPv4 address e.g.
10.1.2.3 would be
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:A:1:2:3
and may also be written as
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:10.1.2.3
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
However, there appears to be a misconception that Governments or ISPs must be the ones to make the conversion first. IPv6 is designed to run side by side with IPv4. I was given 1 IPv4 address from my ISP, but I can use the IPv6 6to4 transition mechanism and get 80 bits worth of routable addresses. And my ISP didn't have to do anything to set it up. (Static IP needed)
Solaris, Linux, and Windows supports this right now. So I say get off your butts and get on IPv6 today.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
This is so incredible frustrating. Some people's ignorance is, apparently, uncureable.
Yes, there is an address shortage. It is already there. Right now !
Proof is simple. People don't get all adresses they feel they need.
Truth is, Morons like you have at some point decided that they know better than me what adresses I need. So You just claim there is enough because You think everybody gets what You consider sufficient. Elitist crap asshole reasoning!
Results of plocies like that is that large carriers run public IP services on private adress space. My company is one of them. Another example: most GPRS services use private IPs and big fat lousy NAT kludges. I personally have recently had to write an analysis about a customer's bitter complaint that he couldnt use the VPN service we sold him from his cellphone. As it turned out, he used gprs, and the aforementionet NAT kludge somehow broke IPSEC.
Suckers like you are modern day internet luddites. You have - out of thin air - concluded that last year's technology is everthing anybody might ever need, and therefore decided that further technological advancement is superfluous. And so you fight tooth and nails any meaningfull progression.