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."

Comments

Shrug

[inertia187]

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.

Re:Shrug

[Pxtl]

Have you tried to do voice chat? Gaming? Serving? Anything other then basic web browsing behind a NAT? NATs seriously reduce the usability of the internet - in many cases, either you forward (thus making it so only one computer behind a NAT of many may serve a certain content) or you don't use that on your computer.

Its sad that there is still no free VOIP client that works consistently behind a NAT (and there are many, many free VOIP clients). Direct P2P file transfers are similarly painful.

Yes, there are solutions, but they're either rare, expensive, hacks, or a combination of the above. Thinking that a NAT is fine just means that you don't do much with your computer.

Re:Shrug

[jd]

Although IP shortage is the usually quoted reason for IPv6, it's actually the least important.

IPv6 provides the following significant other benefits:

• Mobile IP (shift networks without dropping connections)
  
• Guaranteed IP uniqueness (no kidnapping of IPs or accidental re-allocations is possible)
  
• Faster routing (simpler header structure makes it quicker for routers to process a packet)
  
• Smaller router tables (built-in heirarchical IP structure means you don't need more than the immediate routes in or out)
  
• Automatic configuration for services (anycasting allows you to scan your LAN for all services provided and to configure your network accordingly)
  
• IPSec as standard! Probably one of the most significant improvements.
  
• Source-Specific Multicast as standard
  

The reason the US isn't implementing IPv6 has nothing to do with address space. It has to do with the IPSec and mobility requirements. You can't wiretap an encrypted, variable-path connection so easily. And that puts ISPs and backbone providers at risk from Big Nasty Thugs in the Department of Homeland Insecurity.

What is the benefit

[nuggz]

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.

of course they are shrugging it off...

[garcia]

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.

Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Just roll out IPv6 along with the metric system.

Here we go...

[smallpaul]

Canned response 1: There is no problem. Use NAT.
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.

Cyber-Kyoto?

[Pac]

"We couldn't care less about you other countries" seems to be the US motto nowadays.

I like the way...

[Sir Haxalot]

When viewing this artical, in the browser taskbar it says 'US Shrugs Off World'...

I blame the RIAA

[Desus]

they told congress that more IPs would only lead to more IP theft

*rimshot*

I'll be here all week folks.

NAT sucks

[53x19]

I work for an ISP. One of my responsibilites is to manage our IP space (~/16). I am tired of dealing with IP justification, ARIN and customers who want to have public IPs on their office printer farm. Double and yes, sometimes triple NAT in order to get customer networks to talk to monitoring infrastructure. The sooner IP6 gets here the better.

Just Revoke these netblocks

[packethead]

Santa Cruz Operation Incorporated (SCO-3)
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd (SCOL)
Santa Cruz Operation Incorporated SCO1 (NET-150-126-0-0-1) 150.126.0.0 - 150.126.255.255
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd SCO-1 (NET-192-86-169-0-1) 192.86.169.0 - 192.86.169.255
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd SCO-2 (NET-192-153-2-0-1) 192.153.2.0 - 192.153.2.255
Santa Cruz Operation Inc SBCIS68512 (NET-63-199-9-216-1) 63.199.9.216 - 63.199.9.223
Santa Cruz Operation Inc. SBCIS21385 (NET-63-192-223-80-1) 63.192.223.80 - 63.192.223.87

Re:there is a total of 1 billion IPs left

[cyb97]

Because the way IPs where shared out earlier (class-based, remember good 'ole a/b/c) alot of people got 16,000 IPs just becase they need 257 IPs...
The planning didn't really hold water when TCP/IP became mainstream...
Look at the low-end of the IP-range (where most of the big assignements are), IBM are assigned 9.0.0.0/8, leaving them with 255^3 (- unusuables) 16 million addresses. That's enough for a small country. Ironically they don't even use them for their own website which is hosted on 129.42.0.0/16 which is a different subnet also owned by IBM so add another 16,000 addresses to those 16 million and probably countless other subnets held by IBM or IBM subsiduaries in different parts of the world...
Get the picture now?

Arin should charge more for ipv4 and less for ipv6

[cheetah]

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.