Slashdot Mirror
The exhaustion of IPv4 address space
FireFury03 writes "Cisco has an interesting article talking about estimates for the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space, and the inevitable move to IPv6. It predicts that the IPv4 address space will be exhausted in 2 - 10 years and suggests that it isn't worth trying to reclaim old allocations. With the mainstream use of IPv6 now potentially within the ROI period of many products the manufacturers need to start including support, but will the ISPs roll out native IPv6 networks before they absolutely have to? IMHO, ISPs providing native IPv6 support would be a Good Thing since it opens up the door for peer-to-peer technologies such as SIP without needing nasty NAT traversal hacks, but a major stumbling block seems to be a complete lack of IPv6 support on current consumer-grade DSL routers (tunneling over IPv4 is an option but requires more technical know-how from the end user)." Of course, Cisco may have some vested interest in driving up the IPv6-compatible router sales *cough*, but the bottom line is that the transition will have to happen at some point in the near future.
Interesting, but is 2 - 10 years as precise as they can be?
8 years seems to be a long time, to me...
Most of the major ISPs have already rolled support for IPv6. They started the rollout about five years ago when the lack of IP address began to be a problem. I know for a fact that Sprint is ready to roll it, they are just waiting for other networks to support it. T-Mobile is also ready to roll it as is AOL. It's not really a big deal. It's already been done. Everyone is just waiting to push the big red button and turn on the support. Hell, even Windows supports it.
Why don't more routers that are sold today tout their IPv6 compatibility? Are they not compatible with the new protocol? If not why not?
NATs at home can only hold IPv4 together for so much longer. Soon a killer ap will come out that just doesn't want to be NATted, and the whole Internet using public will demand direct addressing [at least they'll demand a solution that requires direct IP addressing].
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I remember reading a while ago that NAT actually turned out to be better than IPv6 by virtue of it "solving" the limited number of addresses problem and simultaneously providing a defence against simple hacking attempts by hiding your real IP address.
Can anyone explain whether this is true or not and why?
Argh.
"and suggests that it isn't worth trying to reclaim old allocations."
Isn't worth it to whom?
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Will *BSD die before the switchover to IPv6? Maybe a good Slashdot poll:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Microsoft
[ ] I don't know what IPv6 is, but I'll post anyway
[ ] Cowboy Neal encodes my packets
I don't think they included the fact that lots of devices are including internet conectivity, and looks like they could be TheNextBestThing, and would increase the rate IPv4 address space gets used up.
it wouldn't have to. all that needs to be configured is a v4 tunnel
endpoint address and after that you're all done. for nasty ethernet
bridged networks there are all sorts of discovery options (optional
dhcp fields, multicast announcments, etc).
if it were important enough and multi-hop support was a problem,
one could just burn a tiny snippet of global address space, not
route it in the default-free world and use it as a isp-specific
service anycast address for tunnel endpoints.
I'd say this is going to be a huge test of the internet and all the various pieces.
Can IPv4 and IPv6 coexist? When do the root servers transfer over? (have they already?) If they can co-exist, what's the motivation for *everyone* to switch?
What happens to smaller countries that don't have the resources to make hardware changes to keep up to date.
From a laymen's perspetive this seems a lot like Y2K in terms of the scope of changes required.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
2-12 years is as precise an answer as Rummy can give about the Iraq insurgency lasting. If it's good enough for the main stream media, it's good enough for average joe six pack me.
Dick "Netcraft" Cheney: I think IPv4 is in its last throes.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
It's a bureaucratic one. The manufacturers aren't going to spend time and money to make their products until it either makes business sense (Cisco, Microsoft) or they are forced to (TV stations that are having to support HDTV).
Evil Overlord Rule #86. I will make sure that my doomsday device is up to code and properly grounded.
">Black Cat Networks in the UK provide native IPv6. Of course, as most ADSL routers don't yet support it, you'd have to put a ADSL card in a Linux/BSD/Windows box. Yay Black Cat!
I don't work for them, but I have used their services....
I emailed my current ISP and asked about IPv6. They said they didn't support it. I said why not? They said because no-one was asking for it. I said: How do you know no-one wants it until you offer it?
Get your own free personal location tracker
TFA didn't help me get much of a clue. I tried reading it, and I said to myself: "aren't there one trillion possible IP addresses, available in principle? (minus 1)" just because of the 12-digit IP addresses i'm used to.
/8 in IPv4 address terminology) were supported, led to some institutions that were involved in the development of the Internet having disproportionally large allocations. MIT, for example, has an entire /8 block allocated to it (224 addresses, about 0.39% of the whole internet address space) and various US Department of Defense agencies have several such blocks."
"The IPv4 address space has 32 bits, limiting it to an absolute maximum of 232 (roughly 4.3 billion) possible addresses. For both administrative and technical reasons (the latter in large part being related to routing), IPv4 addresses are allocated in blocks which are restricted to sizes which are powers of 2; this leads to many addresses being unused at any given time. In addition to this, substantial parts of the IP address space are not easily usable because of early technical decisions reserving them for private network use, loopback addresses, multicast, and unspecified future uses, which has resulted in some of these limitations being programmed into devices; working around these limitations will require substantial amounts of re-engineering to increase the amount of available address space. Finally, some of the IPv4 address allocations made early in the development of the Internet (in the 1970s), when only blocks of 224 possible addresses (called a
THANK YOU wikipedia.
Besides the huge amount of fully routable IP addresses IPv6 will open up, what are the benefits to the average end-user? I mean, will anyone accessing a 4 Mb cable connection through NAT really notice any difference by upgrading? Even large corporations, who also use private IP address space, (as far as I know) don't need fully routable addresses for every machine. So, what exactly is the major benefit? Just asking...
they'll flip the switch on June 14th.
Best Slashdot Co
It will be interesting (and perhaps this has already been all worked out, I haven't looked into it much) how they allocate the IPv6 addresses. It seems fairly clear now that the life of the v4 address space was definitely shortened -- although by how much is not clear -- because of the very large chunks of space that were handed out and never fully utilized. (Class A allocations; IIRC IBM had a massive one and I'm not sure ever used much of it, and I'm sure they're not the only one.) Of course this wasn't viewed as a problem at the time because there were so many more addresses than anyone imagined there would ever be devices.
I just wonder how we're going to resist the temptation to do the same thing again, now that we have another glut of address space. On one hand we don't want to end up with vacant blocks of addresses, but we don't want to be too niggardly about it either, or else individual static addresses won't ever 'trickle down' to end users and we'll be stuck with the same mess of NAT traversals and subnets that we have now.
I'm sure that this issue has been addressed (or will be addressed) but I'm just curious how the IANA will find the 'balance point' between assigning enough high-level blocks to make sure end users can get static global addresses, while not overassigning. Perhaps there should be some sort of a periodic review process for high-level address block assignments to see how fully utilized they are, and either assign an entity more addresses or reallocate underutilized resources.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And I'm sure Cisco would be happy to provide the new equipment necessary for such an upgrade, for a small fee of course.
As far as I can tell, there are more than enough IPv4 addresses to go around -- I'm sorry but no matter how much the average slashdotter wants it to happen, my toaster does not need its own IP on the network. I haven't seen any good examples of why IPv6 is needed. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Anyone who adds that "well IPv4 is inherently broke.." will get a swift kick in the ass.
No? Well then, there you go. You see, the world is driven by the dollar. Simply saying something is a good idea for the future will not make it change. Want proof? Recyling. Gas Mileage. And of course the US moving to the larger european and olympic size hockey rinks. When it becomes NECESSARY, through inconvenience or cost, to move to 6, we'll move to 6. You're wasting your breath arguing otherwise.
in 2 to 10 years lots of things will happen. some people will die, some will be born...
aw, c'mon...
in a month europe, brasil and a few other nations will force a global netsplit, so we'll have 2 "internets". double the address space for the same price, so this prediction is not only imprecise, it's useless!
my R$0,02.
What ? Me, worry ?
I have my IPv4 address. Why should I worry? Perhaps I can even sell mine to the highest bidder when the shite hits the fan.
Hell, maybe the address shortage will create this crazy new "Road Warrior" world where IP addresses are a rare commodity and people have to fight each other with mad overclocked computers just to get some packets routed. And then Mel Gibson can play an ex-help-desk-guy-turned-hero whose Mac was killed by software pirates in the movie version.
All I know is, I'm training my kids how to catch sharp boomerangs.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
I'd love to know the zombienet operators' take on the conversion to IPV6.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Perhaps this is an AskSlashdot, but who is making a decent(affordable) IPv6 router for the home? And where can one locate documents on SIP/RTP in IPv6 land?
lick the cancle button (at least thats what our Chinese QA says)
Cisco may have some vested interest in driving up the IPv6-compatible router sales *cough*, but the bottom line is that the transtion will have to happen at some point in the near future.
If they want this to happen, then it should be possible to do the transition in simple stages, rather than in one "Big Bang". Telephone services switched to digital, first by upgrading the trunk likes transparently to the user, then giving individual customers to the choice to switch from analog to digital.
But from other comments, it seems like the cable-network supply companies are trying to maintain a monopoly on the supply of components.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
http://ipv6.disa.mil/docs/State-of-IPv6-Final-7Feb 05.pdf Google found this, the US DOD review of IPv6 from Feb 2005.
Once the US military switches over, a lot of others will fall in behind them.
fe80::02d0:c1ff:fe5c:0010/10
2002:c0a8:1122::5efe:0a01:0101/48
2001:7f8:2:c01f::2
I mean, DNS goes a long way towards turning that hex into something memorable, but as a sysadmin it does NOT make my life easier. Let's reclaim some of thoseUnfortunately, I can't see companies taking on expensive solutions until the address space is effectively exhausted. IP addresses don't work like commodities at the moment, they are rationed by a regulatory agency at a fixed price. When they start getting rare, I for one, would start allocating as many IPs as possible to sublease to the highest bidders. As long as companies can allocate as many IPs as they want a the fixed price, they have no incentive to migrate (save the other, less immediately useful features of IPv6). Maybe we need to set it up so as IPs get more scarce, they get more expensive. We'd then have a smooth (relatively) transition to IPv6 just like the way increasing gas prices will eventually force alternative fuel usage.
> Of course, Cicsco may have some vested interest in driving up the IPv6-compatible router
> sales
CicSCO?
Um, shouldn't that be "Cisco"? Unless the editor was trying to compare them to SCO somehow...
What about some of the large unused spaces currently used as Honeypots? Is this the best use of these spaces now?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It predicts that the IPv4 address space will be exhausted in 2 - 10 years and suggests that it isn't worth trying to reclaim old allocations
In a related story, Conhugeco Amalgamated Logging industries announced that trying to replant logged forests is a "waste of time."
There's an awful lot of IP space out there, and reallocation can expand the life of IPv4 to a point where IPv6 transition will be a moot point. Until then we'll just keep repeating the same chicken and egg argument, as if the "transition" is going to involve a janitor throwing a giant breaker somewhere and *presto* the world is IPv6!
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
I've been playing with IPv6 off and on since 2000. My current IPv6 plant incarnation is a Cisco 2610XM tunneling traffic from btexact (best tunnel broker if you want to play), a Cisco 1605 that is sometimes online, and a FreeBSD box. I don't have a site up this time, just taking it slow and playing, doing this mostly because the CCIE lab has started requiring IPv6.
The transport works just fine, the application support is still a hassle. If its a barrier for me after five years of dinking and nothing left to do Cisco wise except complete my CCIE
Moving to IPv6 from IPv4 is as much a change in mindset as moving from IPX to IPv4 was
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Have you tried woozling the NAT address matrix with your predefined IPV4 reclaimatron? No? Well I would try that.
Don't use real IP addresses after the gateway. I do IP
MASQUERADING. I get only 1 ip address from my provider.
I've got a wireless webcam, a zaurus wireless pda, company assigned laptop, my linux development desktop computer, my Apple G3 running LinuxPPC (my gateway, web, imap server),
My oldest son't room with a Linux based AMD 64bit server, a
mini mac, a sharp zaurus, my 2 youngest boys room and thier
computer and a laptop up in thier room, my hombrew robot,
a hacked compaq IA-1 that runs linux that I use to monitor my firewall, email, etc.. All these devices get to the outside world on 1 ip address. I have multiple servers that
are accessed by the outside world via port redirection as
well.
My point is that we should be tighter with ip address allocation.
Most of them have flash firmware, and can probably be adapted to work with IPv6.
In general, corporate networks today are so completely firewalled that they might as well be behind NAT, and some (bless 'em) are -- Intel for one uses nonroutable addresses internally.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
So, today you have to pay extra to get a fixed IP. I can understand that, somewhat, because there is a limited number of IP-numbers.
Now, if we have an unlimited number of IP-numbers, then I will be pissed if they expect me to pay extra for a fixed IP. What is their explanation and motivation for a higher price for a Fixed IP?
So maybe one of the reasons that they are trying to delay the introduction of IPV6 is because they know they will no longer get the extra income from customers that are paying for a fixed IP.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
My FTTH line, routed by my debian router, it has an ipv6 ip, and it gets its ip by dhcpcd, do my isp already support ipv6 then?
You'd be hard pressed to find a Cisco box that doesn't support IPv6. This is integrated into IOS 12.3 and that runs on everything clear back to the 2500s. The only thing I have that I want current code for is a 4700 I use as a frame relay switch, but that is archaic lab gear and you won't find many in production. It does have an IPv6 capable image available, it just lacks some of the new stuff like OSPF support that the 12.3 images provide.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Shaw Cable (In Western Canada) now assigns IPv6 and IPv4 addresses to all DHCP requests. Whether your home firewall does anything with the IPv6 address is another matter.
To make most efficient use of the 4.3 trillion possible IPv4 addresses, all we need is one giant honking DHCP server for the world to use. Of course, the USA should run it forever.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If the IP 4 address space was properly allocated then we could probably get another ten years out of the system. We have for example BBN occupying three class A blocks and HP taking another two or three. Set against this is the continent of Africa which is assigned one block.
Ed Almos
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
..is that I'm going to have to re-purchase all the networking equipment that companies are going to refuse to update. That being said, I'm already using IPv6 tunneled through Hurricane Electric and Freenet6. What's nice is the automatic DNS identification and the swimming turtle. Oh, and the price.
I have worked in the internet service business for over a decade now. I have seen a lot of things come and go, and a lot of predictions about when we would run out of IP space.
The bottom line is that the only people who realy WANT a rollout of IPv6 is Cisco. Why? Because the vast majority of their existing installed routers will not support IPv6 with anywhere near the same feature set and packet rate as those routers can handle with IPv4. Thus, IPv6 means people upgrading equipment that isn't really deficient.
Most people have no concept of:
a) How much IP space we have left.
b) How extremely inefficent we have been with a large percentage of the address space.
c) How much assigned, announced, and routed space is completely unused.
d) How much the rate of growth has flattened.
e) How wrong every prediction about when we run out of IP space has been thus far.
If you search the nanog archives, you'll see posts by myself going back many years stating essentially "Somebody tell me why we need IPv6 again?"
Do not hold your breath. We're 10-15 years away from IPv6, because it will take an even larger gross expenditure for the service providers to upgrade to support IPv6 than it did for the broadcast industry to upgrade to HDTV.
This is what industries that rely on revenue growth do when their customer growth flattens. They invent a new widget, come up with reasons why everybody needs it, market it, and hopefully everybody buys the product all over again. IPv6 is admittedly a good bit different; it was created by geeks in attempt to solve a perceived problem. However, it was siezed upon by the router vendors as a future "upgrade when growth flattens" path.
Don't buy into the hype. IPv4 is here to stay for a long time. Even when IPv6 starts to have some decent degree of market penetration, you will always find most of the devices on the net are IPv4 behind IPv6 to IPv4 NATs.
After switching over, give everyone the new IPv6 addresses, since I assume most people have hardware that can support it. If people run into problems or want to keep IPv4, then they can request the IPv4 for free.
Anyhow, I myself was curious about if/when IPv6 would be rolled out. One of the talks was about how to deal with IPv4 space running out, and a lot of the talk revolved around such things as multiple web sites running on the same IP (which was very uncommon then) and other ways to use less address space. Some audience members gave other suggestions for conserving IP space such as ways to use Network Address Translation to limit public IP use. I would say the feeling in the hall was that this was not a problem, and that people had to go the route of IP sharing, and aside from the need for more IP sharing, everyone pretty much liked the situation as it was, which was in contrast to the prevailing attitude in the world outside the hall. One audience member rose his hand and said, "What about IPv6?" The response to this was the entire audience broke into laughter - it was the funniest thing they had heard that week. After that I began thinking about IPv6 more along the lines of projects such as MBONE (anyone remember the hooplah over that years ago?). Not that IPv6 will never be implemented, but this story that IPv6 was needed straightaway could have been written 8 years ago. I haven't seen much headway in it in the past 8 years, except for products promising they were IPv6 compatible, just in case. Not that IPv6 will never be rolled out on a large scale, but I'm not holding my breath.
IPv6 worldwide will require all old routers that don't support it to be replaced. Cisco sells routers.
This rising problem maybe the best way for the UN to get full control of the internet. Create two competing IPv6 systems (US and the UN) that will collide until one ruling authority has been dedicated. They will not get control of the internet for several years, but it will eventually be there and much more effective then controlling DNS.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
(Sarcasm detector explodes.)
What about OpenWRT http://openwrt.org/, it runs on several consumer grade DSL routers http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware and supports IPv6 http://wiki.openwrt.org/IPv6_howto?highlight=(ipv6 )?
With nice Web frontends it's as easy to use (when successfully installed) as e.g. the Linksys Web frontend. Freifunk http://www.freifunk.net/ has a nice customized OpenWRT version (sorry, homepage is in German only).
I don't think that IPv6 will see the end of NAT at all. NAT is a very quick and covenient technique for consumer DSL routers to use.
/28), even with the increased address space. And even when you do have multiple addresses allocated, what about the users that have one more machine than usable addresses? Small company networks etc? Now matter how many addressed IPv6 supplies, we will run out eventually, and much sooner than we expect.
For a start, a lot of ISPs only offer one address, partly to encourage people to buy more expensive packages with multiple addresses, and NAT transparently solves that issue.
There is no reason to assume that increased avilability of addresses will cause ISPs to offer more addresses to consumers - after all if they anticipate 100,000 single PC broadband connections, they are going to find it hard to get approval for 800,000 addresses (to allow a
Also low end ADSL connections often force NAT upon a user, allowing the vendor to create a differentiator between it's commercial and domestic offerings.
In the end NAT offers security, independence of allocated IP space to available addresses, simplified network management with an excellent delineation point between vendor and consumer (the ISP dosen't have to worry about what is inside the end user network), and a reasonable form of security. It's great for a small internet connected network.
That was my "link local ID"
It only makes sense. Cisco has:
198.133.219/24
128.107/16
128.108/16
64.104/16
64.100/14
I count 524,544 ip addresses right there. It's pretty amazing because cisco only has 34,000
employees, or 15 IP addresses per person.
No wonder they don't want to give any addresses back. It's a lot of work to use public addresses effectively.
Meanwhile, convince everyone else to spend umpteen-trillion dollars to switch to IPv6 or only the people who want to get on the Internet in the next few years, and they don't have to do a damn thing.
Oh, and I'm almost certain cisco has other netblocks. Those are only the ones I know of off the top of my head.
The end is near. No more IPv4 address space is available. The sky is falling! I have a feeling that IPv4 will be around a lot longer than the next two to ten years. The reasons corporations move to the newest wizbang technology is because it affects their bottom line, in a good way. The transition to IPv6 will have no positive impact on a corporations stock, but rather be an expensive and time consuming "maintenance task". Granted there are a lot of benefits that go along with IPv6, such as increased security mechanisms which could affect a corporations bottom line, but indirectly... it's not something stockholders are likely to care much about. What reason does a multinational company have to spend millions of dollars moving their infrastructure to IPv6 if they're happily sitting being a firewall doing NAT with a whole class A at their disposal?
Most consumer routing products are quite capable of running IPv6 if (keyword here) it gets compiled into the binary. Most of the products I have seen are running some form of Linux firmware. Most of the higher end networking products have had IPv6 for many years, though some products may need CAM cards to take advantage of this. My only issue for IPv6 is older operating systems that are still used, in the consumer market, Win9x, WinNT, and even Win2k do not have IPv6 stacks (though Win2k last I remember had a beta version available). But this is where the NAT to IPv4 address space would be more useful. But again there was one RFC out in the 80's that could have given us more time, by giving new classes of IP Addresses, in smaller blocks then a /24. But that's an argument for another day.
Also, Earthlink is offering a beta of IPv6 to any of their customers who want to use an Earthlink provided firmware set for Linksys (and compatible) routers. They've had this for a while. With OpenWRT and variants like SVEA there are a lot of consumer routers capable of IPv6 routing, 6on4 translation, etc.
I have had 10.x.x.x addresses for a long time and I am gonna keep them. You varmits need to find your own, your not taking away my net addresses. Same goes for the 192.168.X net. That's mine too, it's just my summer home.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
is home nat routers. They effecively prevent you using either 6to4 or native IPv6 unless the nat router itself explicitly supports it.
and they are effectively closed devices so adding support requires the manufactueres cooperation.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I have noticed over the past couple of weeks that my cable modem (Comcast) loses it's connection a couple of times each evening, but comes back with a stable connection within about five minutes. Could this be an indication that Comcast might be having address space issues, and needs to institute rolling IP address blackouts in order to compensate? Just speculation.
You're talking only about the default configuration of most NAT-enabled routers. It's possible to enable NAT and have the translation device forward incoming packets to a machine on the internal network, it's just not usually set up that way. You can easily do this though by selecting a particular internal machine to be in the router's "DMZ," after which it will be accesible to the public Internet without initiating a connection.
NAT is normally combined with stateful filtering, but it's not necessarily part of the bare minimum 'address translation.'
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Everyone whines about address space and we will run out... but the fact is that the address space is only one of the benefits to ipv6 and not even the biggest one at that.
./configure for some)
1) Ipv6 has a fixed 20 bytes header and IPv4 has a 40 byte header with additional sub headers for extention. 20 byte headers are more bandwidth efficient than the larger ipv6 headers and represent a signifigant cost savings to an organization over the long run.
2) ipv6 routers never have to worry about packet fragmentation and re-assembly. Packet too big? Send back an ICMP that says "Packet too big" and let the client/server handle fragmentation. IPv6 routers will need less CPU and memory.
3) Want to switch ISPs? Use dynamic reconfiguration for your addresses. You can keep your old IP to stay responsive as you join a new network and TELL people that you switched IPs. If you have ever gone through an IP renum (for even a subpartition of your network) then you will know how much time and money this feature will save.
4) You have multiple addresses such as link local addressing (fec0) for machines on the same broadcast domain (switches and hubs) org local addressing (for your business and behind the firewall) and none of these need configured locally on the machine... it is all automagic and guarantees uniqueness. You can also have hardwired addresses or use DHCP if you want... but why would you?
5) DNS still works, so do most other services (ok, yeah, you might have to re-run
6) you can still tunnel to backwards ipv4 addresses.
7) oh yeah... something about a larger address space. (which isn't a big deal because right now everyone that wants on the internet is on the internet).
The real points for getting people to move are points 1, 2 and 3 with a little of points 5 and 6 for the FUDders. Stick to the points that will make the PHBs budge and maybe it will happen in the next 2 to 10 years for real. Otherwise we are likely to exhaust our oil reserves before we switch to ipv6.
The whole IPV6 scheme blows chunks. I used to be able to type 124.23.11.222, or something like it, and I'd enter four numbers to represent my lot of a few billion addresses. Even 124.23.11.222.234.122 would be managable and that would provide 65k x 4 billion addresses, which ought to be enough for everyone. But IPV6 addresses look aweful. They really do.
This is my sig.
A /8 network is a 255.0.0.0 mask, this is 16 million addresses, NOT 244.
oh great, now we got to worry exploding IPs and routers. People shooting spam at us from every direction. You never know when your gonna step on a 419 and end up buying the "low rate M0RTgaT3".
Maybe we better give control to the UN after all.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I'm running a Linksys WRT54G, which runs Linux. If Linksys doesn't release a new firmware to support whatever tech is needed, someone else will; there are multiple sources of firmwares for this box, and it's one of the most popular boxes.
To me this is one of the best reasons to pay $50 for a 54G instead of buying one of the $15 crapo boxes; I'm not locked in and I can do all kinds of cool stuff if I want. Similar to why I like to run Linux on my PCs.
I don't know if they provide native IPv6, but they DO provide IPv6 tunnels, so if they don't provide native, it's not because they don't have the equiptment. (You think they'd provide tunnels if they didn't have the protocol enabled on their routers?)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What percentage of products from Linksys, a division of Cisco, ship with IPv6 support?
I called them and asked--Linksys stated that none of their current products support IPv6, but if it ever becomes popular then an update will be provided at no additional cost to the customer.
So, as a follow on question, I brought up that the same claim of an update at "no additional cost to the customer" was stated a year ago when I bought the WET54G v1.1 which provides no WPA support ("but will be supplied via a free update later.") Tech support now states that WPA is only supported with v2.0 hardware and the firmware for v2.0 hardware can not be used on v1.1 hardware. The recommendation is to continue using WEP or purchase v2.0 hardware at the full purchase price.
When asked if IPv6 will truely be a "no additional cost update" or actually be a re-purchase like going from WET54G v1.1 hardware to WET54G v2.0 hardware just to get WPA support, Linksys could not provide an answer.
Cisco backing IPv6 is just like Cisco backing TCP Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) while at the same time they are blocking use of ECN.
If Cisco is going to talk the talk... it would be nice if they got their company/divisions in line to actually walk the walk. Then again, it seems like one thing you can count on with John Chambers running a company is alot of hot air being produced. If only hot air could be used as an update to support WPA or IPv6.
I bet you meant 2^24, didn't you? 'sup' isn't an allowed tag.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
You'd think they'd try to reclaim 127./8 first. It seems pretty awful to allocate a whole Class A when only the first address is ever used. I mean how hard can it be to change out? Just get all those Winows users to download a patch.
But seriously, besides "localhost" and NTP clock devices, is any other use made of 127./8?
The EU is so hot and fired up to wrench control of the intarweb from the US, so let THEM deal with it. If we can't be trusted with the DNS system, seems logical to me that the EU would be much better off orchestrating and paying for the upgrade to IPV6.
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
The bloody telecoms managed to fix this problem, why can't we?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Let's not forget that any rollout of IPv6 aware devices is going to be plauged by patent litigation. Turns out that just before its release, and lot of "Intellectual Property" "Firms" simply guessed the IPv6 standard, or parts of it, and bought^H^H^H^H^H^Happlied for corresponding patents from the USPTO rubber stamping office.
That means for around the next 20 years we'll have the whole RSA debaucle played all over again in the IPv6 sphere. Expect to see "Innovative Ideas" lawsuits gouging money from OS makers and especially makers of routers(esp consumer grade) and other networking devices.
Look on the bright side thought. With any luck, we'll run out of IPv4 addresses before the litigation finishes, and then someone really WILL have to do something about it!
May the Maths Be with you!
There are *millions* of Linksys, Netgear, DLink, routers and access points out there. Most of which don't support IPv6. And I doubt these vendors are going to update all that firmware.
Nor will consumers be into throwing out old hardware "to get more IP space"... that's not exactly going to work (marketing wise).
Nor will people with old OS versions, or other odd devices (IP cameras, etc. etc.).
IMHO this will need government pressure, similar to the digital switchover for TV. Some sort of a date for compliance of devices, and a clean switchover date.
$30 for another home router?
There's always the native firewall in Windows.
tee hee
Many major ISPs had some degree of roll-out nearly TEN years ago. Some of the early 6Bone maps are still on the Internet. Cisco, Bay and Telebit had some of the first IPv6 implementations nine or ten years ago. Technology has not been the problem for a very long time.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why not give the ISP's hulking great big tax breaks so they can go explore for more IP addresses.
You could open up the IP address of the Department of National Parks, and let them look in there for more IP addresses - there's sure to be plenty in there because nobodies ever looked.
Failing that, you could do invade some other countries allocation of IP addresses and use those.
There's plenty of IP addresses in the world: using the USGS model, if you count the number of blocks where there is a 50% chance of finding 10 free IP address and average it with blocks where there is a 90% chance of finding 1 free IP, we won't run out until 2200 at the earliest and the number of IP addresses just tripled to 12 billion!
I know, they haven't found new IP addresses for the last couple of decades, but that's because of them dam Democrats refusal to look.
Thing since it opens up the door for peer-to-peer technologies such as SIP without needing nasty NAT traversal hacks
While NAT was originally created to help with address crunches (in combination with RFC 1918), it is used as a security mechanism now to prevent from outsiders from hoping onto a person's / company's 'internal' network.
I don't think NAT will go away since for most people NAT == firewall.
IMHO, NAT is a simple mechanism to help minimize the risk of a direct attack on a network from the 'outside'. Though you have to be careful not to have a false sense of security just because you're "behing a firewall".
The IP-indirection that NAT creates provides a limited level of anonymity that many users appreciate on an Internet that is now threatened continuously by RIAA lawsuits and the like. Although technologies like this are possible on IPv6, they would be more the exception than the rule, making the act of anonymity a suspicious one. Whereas, in IPv4, the act of using NAT and becoming a bit more anonymous is the rule, and doesn't count as suspicious activity.
It's not the only reason some prefer to stay with IPv4 as long as possible, but it gives some good reason to stick with it as long as the greedy clutches of the RIAA remain.
Anyhow, those lines should look something like:
coding is life
I'd hate to see all of those IPv4 loopback address jokes phased out. Somehow telling someone to h4x 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 just doesn't seem as hilarious.
The only admins who don't like IPv6 are those who are either ignorant of the way it works, or who are too hooked on being worked to death. Both need help, treatment and beer.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I know it's not what people want to hear, but NATs serve two purposes: it allows multiple computers to share a single IP, and that's important. However, it's also important as a mechanism that protects home users from the Internet.
When IPv6 becomes common, as it must, a new IPv6 NAT will almost certainly emerge to continue that isolation. Whether or not it gives any kind of real protection or not, homes users and home router providers aren't yet willing to allow guys like me to connect directly to your toaster.
Sorry. Reality bites.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Could it end up going the way of New Coke and completely failing?
With the widespread use of NAT routes everywhere, is that glut of IPs really needed? Will workarounds be used instead of IPv6 implementation?
I'm using 6to4 right now, but it's not good enough! One of the greatest benefits of IPv6, true multicast support, does not work, since the underlying IPv4 layer does not support multicast.
Many applications could take advantage of multicast if it were available.
Some examples:
Bittorrent is a cheesy IPv4 emulation of multicast.
Game servers could multicast 'common' data and save roughly 50% of the total bandwidth used.
Mirror sites could multicast their updates. Debian, Redhat, and other mirrors would use a fraction of their current bandwidth.
If you went the bittorrent way, files could be sent via looping multicast, no more slashdotting the Id games servers.
Basically, any duplicate TCP/IP streams could be a single stream that gets replicated at the router. I want it now!
Think of it, even spam could be more efficient with multicast emails!
Shae Erisson - ScannedInAvian.com
I imagine it isn't worth the frustration to try to get the unused IPs out and reallocated when you could just be allocating IPv6 IPs and upgrading.
/could/ handle IPv6.
To answer: isn't worth it to anyone who wants/has IPs and already has hardware that
Most of the networks we'd have to reduce would mean moving machines to different IPs, which is much more of a problem than it seems.
First off, you have to make sure some percentage the old cached copies of the DNS are gone. You won't want to wait long enough to get them all, so for some people it "won't work."
Second, you don't know who is connecting to an IP versus who is connecting by resolving a hostname. Even when hostname goes in the protocol(i.e. http) it can be fooled by an entry in a hosts file or something equivalent. You could do some rigorous cross-checking based on DNS records, but that's a big problem in itself.
Third, often you have internal depenencies based on IPs. Document the hell out of it, but you still forget to mention that there is a default deny policy on a machine. Change your IP and you lose access to it.
All in all if you move an IP in under a week with under 10 hours of paid admin work, you're tempting fate. Obviously, this frame goes up if your business depends on the machine in some way. Moving multiple machines will reduce the per/machine frame, but it's still significant.
Now, moving to IPv6 you have those same considerations, plus you need to invest the pay-hours to get the IPv6ness to all the machines. Whether this includes leaving machines in their IPv4 state and translating from IPv6 or ensuring that every machine can do IPv6, it doesn't matter. Assuming you have hardware/software capable of doing IPv6, you should see about 150% of the time it would have taken to move to another IPv4 range.
We may have a lot of completely unused IP space out there, but those IPs probably won't make much difference to the 2-10 year estimate. The problem is when you have 8 class C networks with 1-5 hosts each. Try to merge networks behind different routers and you will confound the routing space problems(huge BGP tables already), too. The final point is that once you've reclaimed all this IPv4 space you've still only delayed the inevitable shortage.
Interesting, but is 2 - 10 years as precise as they can be?
8 years seems to be a long time, to me.
Yep, and thirty years ago they said that we would be out of oil in twenty years. Go figure...
Click here or here.
Sure, the hardware /supports/ IPv6, but if you try to do both IPv4 and IPv6 on the hardware, you take the load way up.
As long as IPv6 isn't required to get everywhere, they can save money by using smaller/fewer routers to do IPv4 work.
In terms of just memory, you almost double the use by having a separate table for IPv4 and IPv6.
"And then Mel Gibson can play an ex-help-desk-guy-turned-hero whose Mac was killed by software pirates in the movie version."
Mind if I use this to write a short story sometime?:-) I'd email you but can't find a link.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
it isn't worth trying to reclaim old allocations...
Excuse me? Is it *really* that hard to talk to Apple, Ford, MIT or any of the other people with a whole Class A and ask "Say, guys, do you *really* need all 16 million addresses we gave you back when we didn't think this Internet thing was gonna take off?" Fucking A, according to that page, Halliburton has 34.x.y.z! Surely we can get *that* one back, right?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Submissions aren't limited to three sentences. Try breaking that last monster up a bit for readability...
QoS and multicast are built into ipv6, and both will make a big difference to internet broadcast media. With multicast it will cost a media source as much bandwith to transmit to a million viewers as to one, with little cost to the intervening routers. The Quality of Service stuff means that not only will my SOHO router know to shift my VOIP and game traffic first and the P2P stuff last, but so will the other routers involved.
Regardless of the ipv6 transition, I'd expect a large proportion of routers to be replaced in the next 2-10 years, and if your hardware can't support a firmware upgrade then you need to replace it anyway.
We had an IT person in our london office at a previous job. When I was out there, I had mentioned that they were running out of IP's for the office and we'd have to assign a new block. She pulls out her spreadsheet which is fully poplated up to something like .253, and proceeds to show me all the empty space up to .999.
.255. We should just all follow her lead and go to .999. It's like a network that goes to 11 man.
Obviously we are underutilizing the ipv4 space, no one seems to use anything above
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
I recently asked my cable ISP what their IPv6 gateway was. They said, "We don't provide that service. Maybe you should upgrade to a business account."
They only offer multiple client services on business accounts, so technically I'm already in violation of their rules because of using a router and NAT even though I run no "server", just a couple of PCs.
Yes, Cisco has a vested interest in replacing all those legacy IPv4-only cigar-box routers like mine. Yes, my IP provider would love a reason to raise rates or otherwise push me into a "business" account (and thereby charge me more).
Fact is, I won't be buying a new router, I'll just recycle one PC into place as a gateway and continue to hide behind NAT because I don't care to pay business rates for home PC use.
No matter how much I dislike IPv6 because of its "second system" bloat, I have yet to find a free IPv6 tunnel provider. Yes, it's my fault, people tell me they're out there I just cannot find them.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Linksys WRT54GS http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?childpage name=US%2FLayout&packedargs=c%3DL_Product_C2%26cid %3D1126536698937&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisit orWrapper + OpenWRT http://www.openwrt.org/ = < $100
-=[ place
Why doesn't SBC/Earthlink/Comcast/Sprint/whomever roll out IPv6 to their "consumer" DSL customers? I know that IPv6 capable systems can "see" all IPv4 addresses, it's just not true the other way. And, by using an IPv6 address, they'd make it more difficult to set up a server, right? That's what they want anyway, right?
Really, why not? Is there something I'm missing?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
List of AS connected to DE-CIX
A hack is just an idiom waiting for wider use.
How many programs are out there in active use that make use of TCP/IP? How many of them are IPv6-ready?
My guesses: tens of thousands and a handful, respectively.
IPv6 is going to happen, but upgrading all those applications is going to be much bigger than Y2K was.
Yup, this is a big issue. People want to have the liberty to do what they want in their own home. After all when you put a nail into your own wall, do you have to phone up the regional governing entity or pay to do so? Why should we have to do the same for our private computers?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I work for a class "A" organization and several years ago we did an audit because whole national geographies ran out of static address space. We found that about half of the addresses were never reclaimed and reused. Moreover we found more than 800 undocumented DNS domains internally.
Try a Cisco 87x router. These are sold in the UK, are fully IPv6, provide 4 10/100 ports in case your switch is v4 only, offer WLAN 802.11b/g option (does this carry v6? i dunno) and have lots of other nice features as well. Haven't had time to check compatability. Expensive - ish, see : http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/ShopDetail.as p?ProductID=2277&CategoryID=325&ShopGroupID=78 (the top model in the series) but available now.
p roducts_data_sheet0900aecd8028a976.html
Data sheet : http://cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps380/
IPv6 addressing architecture
IPv6 name resolution
IPv6 statistics
IPv6 translation-transport packets between IPv6-only and IPv4-only endpoints
ICMPv6
IPv6 DHCP
Until the ISP backhaul is routing IPv6 it's still not native all the way, so A&A or whoever your ISP is doesn't. Ask for a allocation and tunnel to the 6bone. Until not so long ago NTT UK offered ranges and free peering, and there were other free v6 peering intiatives. coupl'a years since i cared much about this so forgive me if anything changed (save the ready availability of IPv6 capable routers). Hopefully POPs with lots of LLU will be the first to go native in the UK, so we can have v6 and >=8Mbps to cope with all that traffic from my fridge, cooker, clock, toilet, kitchen drawer, hallway light . . .
IPv6 will suffer the same fate as IPv4 multicast. It will be usable without additional tunneling to only small portion of Internet users. Unless users really need some features or the features can't be profited (by ISPs, manufacturers, advertisers) from, they're not going to be implemented in large scale.
You seem to forget that ISP's want as tight a grip on the consumer as possible. They also want to charge extremem premiums on "serving" content. Why would they ever bother pushing a technology that just allows consumers more freedom when they can just triple NAT so that while you can view web pages, you'll never be hosting files, using VOIP that isn't through them, getting any value out of your connection. They have proven time and time again that they will do everything within their power to sap as much out of consumers as possible. IPV6 will just hamper their bloodsucking ventures, so why would they implement without being pushed? I wouldn't be suprised if they just started pulling current consumers with "outside IP's" to give to business divisions, and further NAT'ing people. You live in a dream world if you think they aren't rolling out IPV6 because there is no need (from a consumer standpoint).
Mobile Ipv6 may actually get rolled because it can reduce cost and backhaul latencies for wireless VoIP providers. MIPv4 doesn't allow route optimization, so it doesn't quite solve the problem as cleanly and required either more capex or opex to support. Whether or not this happens depends if the cost can be justified vs. router upgrades, staff training, and service outages due to new technology and misunderstandings of new technology.
Having said that I don't see a landline ISP moving to IPv6 until at least one of the following occurs:
1) Government mandate for v6
2) v6 reduces cost somehow (see above)
3) Everyone else is doing it
Mike Borella http://www.borella.net/mike
And here you've just hit the crux of the issue, and perhaps the biggest stumbling block in widespread IPV6 adoption. All of us (the Slashdot, Technocrat, and tech crowd in general) believe that end-to-end, peer-to-peer is the way things are supposed to work. I imagine that most of our ISPs sternly disagree with this philosophy, and *like* the client-server model, since it lowers support costs. Plus we know which model the ??AA prefers.
I suspect that as others have said, Cisco sees IPV6 as an opportunity to sell more hardware, probably more than once, because there will be evolution as it sees real-world use.
I can easily foresee a two-tier Internet, where there is IPV6 at some level "up there," but us unwashed masses will continue to get IPV4. Besides support, there's a cost issue. For instance, our ISPs can adopt IPV6 at their next-level-up feeds with a little bit of hardware. But I suspect most of their hardware investment is much lower down, closer to us, and if it works, they'd just as soon keep the old IPV4 hardware in place. Even if it could be a firmware upgrade, it's still a nightmare to roll out over thousands of users.
The interesting question would be corporate interests. I suspect they'd like to get some of the benefits of IPV6, but probably would prefer to keep the tighter control over their lans that is "justified" by IPV4.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Is there nothing special about 255 to you?
It is the 256th number, if you include 0 in your count. Coincidentally 256 is also the number of values a single byte can represent.
Each number in the dotted decimal form of an IP address is the a numeric representation of a single byte.
There will not be IPv4 addresses going to 999, there will not even be any going to 256. (seeing as how counting starts from 0).
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Aah, but is that information put in the packet in such a way that they can charge more for better priority and routing? I'm under the impression that they're currently looking at ways to do that stuff with IPV4 for "preferred customers." In that sense, ISPs would clearly not want to see QOS become "fair," because they lose a value-add revenue option.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Most - if not all - internet connections are nowadays behind a NAT connection, which is a de-facto firewall. Those firewalls tend to take advantage of UDP and TCP connections having port numbers, and renumbering the ports. What if we were to somehow merge the IP addresses, and the TCP/UDP Port Numbers together into a 32(IP part)+16(port number)+1(UDP-vs.TCP) address? That would give us a 49 bit address space - which would be far more comfortable. No re-coding applications (for the most part) - the same basic IPv4 calls would work. But instead of allocating an entire IPv4 addresses to a machine, you would allocate instead an IP and a port number to a machine. This could be nicely backwards compatible with firewalls that are out there, and everything. And probably wouldn't change how the Internet is routed. You'd still have problems with Well Known Services tending to reside on certain ports, but you could help reduce that by adding some stuff to DNS to return port numbers as well as IP addresses.
Now Cisco has new products that can cope with IPv6 on the lower end, its time to sell everyone new hardware.
/22 then /21. This mean that many people have far more addresses than they need.
/24 or smaller networks.
The real reason we are out of IPv4 address is because Cisco routers were too stupid to efficiently treat the entire net as 16 million class C addresses and deal with that problem so their solution to reduce the memory requirements (of Just Cisco routers, no one else had the problem) was to consolidate routes and not allocate anything smaller than a
The reality is that real routing in the IPv6 land is just as bad as routing in the old class C world and you have the added benefit of needing far more memory to do the job.
This still doesn't fix the real problem which is that many small companies need dual homed
The solution now should be that no new address space is handed out unless its issued to two different ISPs that agree to allocated it to dual homed customers. That would means the next block allocated to MCI is also allocated to Quest so that they can hand it out to customers that are hooked to both. It will be a huge mess for the ISPs and an absolute nightmare for their marketing people but it would do great things for the reliability of the net for smaller users.
After a little thought, I agree with you, but each nation will have a different reason.
India will want to roll out forefront technology because they see that as opportunity for their nation.
China will want to roll out IPV6 for the same reason, PLUS: With IPV6 no NAT is needed, and in fact they could probably find a way to disallow all NAT within the country. That puts every computer on the country directly on their Internet, making government tracking and hacking much easier.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Will we run out of oil before or after we run out of IPv4 addresses?
The only good news to come out of the answer of that question is that nobody is going to die when we run out IPv4 addresses.
(I'm just full of joy tonight!... I need more beer)
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Current recommendations are for ISPs to hand out /48 networks to each customer (so that the customers have 80 bits of autoconfig space). If each ISP has 64K (2^16) users, there's still enough address space for 4 billion (2^32) ISPs. Conversely, we could have 64K ISPs, each will 4 billion customers, without overlap.
I think that we'll manage.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
NAT doesn't transparently solve that issue at all. Nothing about NAT is transparent, quite the opposite. NAT is no substitute for real addresses for many reasons.
Read the standards and allocation policies for IPv6. The minimum amount of address space that the registry expects any end subscriber to get from the ISP is a
We will run out of IPv6 addresses much sooner than expected? Do you have any idea how many IPv6 addresses there are? Given the standards above, the smallest amount that will be allocated to any single subsriber is
That's over three times the surface area of the earth. Measured in square millimeters. For your network alone.
No it doesn't. read the rebuttals
The ISP never has to worry about what is inside the end user network anyway. The only thing they're concerned with is the size of the prefix they're routing your way. That doesn't make any difference to them in terms of resource usage on their equipment. Only how many of their finite number of addresses are being consumed. And IPv6 makes that virtually irrelevant.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
grep for "Reserved"
While I agree that the Internet version of the Chicken Little story ("we're running out of address space! we're running out of address space!") has been around for a long time and heard by myself more times than I care to remember; and that Cisco does have a vested interest...but this time, I'm starting to pay closer attention, as the next ten years will see major changes and major growth in address space utilization. The reasons?
One thing we here in the US seem to keep forgetting is that the Internet is global. Over the past several years, several countries have been building out a good chunk of infrastructure, and the question I have is how much of that is IPv6, or will NEED to be IPv6? Don't forget, China has only just started to come on-line. Want to talk IPv4 address exhaustion?
Additionally, mobile devices are a huge seller throughout the world (I believe a billion last year alone), and that will only be increasing as the years go by. With the addition of networking capabilities to billions of mobile devices...well, you get the picture.
I think Chicken Little may be onto something this time.
As a VoiP tech, NAT and it's evil brother NAT-t are the bain of my tech support life.
The SIP contact header is nice but the EP and FW port number get messedup all the time by NAT tables.
I rejoice when a customer tells me he has a public routable IP for his ATA, life is good after that.
But woe to me when they hide the SIP ATA behind 3 routers and PIX firewall and want to know why they only get 1 way RTP audio.
BTW SPI (statefull packet inspection) is not your friend.
As long as IPv6 isn't required to get everywhere, they can save money by using smaller/fewer routers to do IPv4 work.
I think that rather depends on how much of the network is IPv6 only - if there's a large chunk that's only on IPv6 then refusing to support it would be like telling the customers "we've decided to not route any of your traffic to the US anymore because that's cheaper for us". Customers would be leaving them in droves - they don't need to understand _why_ parts of the internet are inaccessible, it will just become known that this ISP is crap because they have "firewalled" off part of the internet in the interests of cost saving.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
We have a B-net and we don't really need it.
I guess many other have the same issue.
I don't think you understand quite how big a 32 bit address space is. IPv6 has something on the order of 1000 addresses for everyone on the planet. Public addresses would simply cease to be rare or valuable. Your ISP could get the addresses it wanted with no trouble, anyone who wanted multiple ones for their home network would simply ask for them. We will not run out of IPv6 addresses on this planet, and I suspect we'll need a new routing protocol anyway once our networks move beyond it.
I am trolling
Not all 128 bits are usable in an IPv6 address. Only the top 48 is issued on a per-customer basis from ISPs, and the next 16 bits are used for internal routing on the customers network. The bottom 64 bits are all network-local address. Nobody in their right mind would try to put 2^64 hosts on a single subnet, so there will be a LOT of unused space.
Yes, you can set up different routing internally if you really want to, but the bottom line is the 48-bit prefix per end-user bit is established in the standard and what will be assigned. Add hierarchical routing on top of that, and even more address space will be wasted.
My only issue for IPv6 is older operating systems that are still used, in the consumer market, Win9x, WinNT, and even Win2k do not have IPv6 stacks
AMEN. If anything I would expect Microsoft to be pushing IPv6, because it's the one thing that WinXP has that Win2k doesn't. A lot of businesses are sticking with Win2k because XP has no compelling new features and adds a lot of useless crap.
Dude, do you realize how many addresses a 128-bit address space gives you? About 3.4 * 10^38 address, give or take. I would type out the number for you, but I'd probably get carpal tunnel syndrome from doing it.
If you were to assign addresses at the rate of one billion addresses PER SECOND for a BILLION YEARS, you would not even come close to using up one trillionith of the address space.
In short, we will not 'run out eventually', as you say. The sun will supernova long before that will ever happen.
What rock are you hiding under? Vendors are all the time releasing new versions of their firmware for their consumer grade DSL router/firewall/NAT boxes. Quite a few of them have a linux project which gives you IPv6 natively, such as OpenWRT for LinkSys.
You also seem to be under the mis-impression that IPv4 and IPv6 are mutually exclusive. This is a common mistake by people with almost no knowledge of networking. There are ISPs all over Europe right now that offer both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses on their DSL and Cable lines. If you have a router which supports IPv6, *BAM*, it's on and working. No real configuration to do, just click the checkbox on the configuration page or whatever. Computers which support IPv6 then just auto-configure their interfaces and start using IPv6 whenever possible, and the user never even notices.
I've got a dual IPv4/IPv6 ISP at home, and it just works. Mac OS X, Solaris, and OpenBSD all just start using IPv6 when they see a local router offering IPv6 Neighbor Discovery packets. Windoze boxes require loading the IPv6 stack from a web site somewhere, but once installed and configured it pretty much works without maintenance.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
> I don't think you understand quite how big a 32 bit address space is. IPv6 has something on the order of 1000 addresses for everyone on the planet.
That one is just too funny. I don't think you understand how big a 128 bit address space is either. 1000 each huh.
That's not that bad
Then there is Vista, at least one of the many many many many versions
The customers aren't demanding it. I'd still do it for the heck of it, but when the customers aren't demanding it I can't justify creating a multi-thousand dollar obligation to ARIN and filling out a mass of paperwork to get an allocation that's actually usable on the Internet. And of course the folks I buy bandwidth from aren't using it either for largely the same reason, so it does me no good.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
They built this thing called "the Internet" that you might have heard of?
Testing this amazing new widget called a "router" required a fair amount of address space at one time.
Well, OK, actually they called it a "gateway" but that means something else now.
Maybe if a certain organization that assigns addresses wasn't using IPv6 to attempt to raise 2^128 dollars in fees... IPv6 is simple, paying for the address allocation will put you into chapter 7.
But I still can't figure out why noone is deploying it... hmmmmmm.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
How's your carpal tunnel performing now ?
Yeah, if we start to run low by giving everyone /48s, we'll start giving out /64s or /72s or what not; it'll be like CIDR.
A lot of the people who designed ipv6 don't like NAT, so you get this fanboyish opposition to NAT in ipv6 (ipv6 once had NAT, but they got rid of it; read the RFCs)
This is probably true of all DirectPlay-based games, actually - since they want peer-to-peer communications, and they use IP address to distinguish nodes, you can't have more than one player transit the gateway in either direction cleanly.
Bah, sorry, got my measurements mixed up. I was confused by american/british billions and ended up counting a million instead.
I am trolling
I was unclear: as long as you can still get everywhere using IPv4, they can provide the service cheaper by supporting only IPv4.
The point where you need IPv6 to get somewhere important is where people will start to complain about not having IPv6. Until then, only a technical minority will have problems for the lack. On the same note, it only takes the buzz word to make managers adopt it.
I seem to remember that, back around 1994, there were lots of noises about IPv4 address space becoming depleted. Weren't NAT devices supposed to help with this?
Also... I'm no network expert by a long shot, but I have looked at the docs for IPv6, and they struck me as overly complex at best.
Wouldn't it be possible (and a lot easier) to stave off Impending Doom by adding one or two more octets to the existing IPv4 scheme? If not, fine, but I can't be the only one who's wondered whether it's really that simple.
Keep the peace(es).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
You didn't RTFA, obviously. It was full of real numbers reflecting reality which includes NAT, not wishful thinking of an armchair /. pundit.
Even with wide deployment of NAT in both consumer connections and at corporate edges, the IPv4 address space is still running out fast. NAT and HTTP 1.1 bought us 10 years of breathing space, but that is now ending. NAT is not going to go away, but in a few years, when an ISP or a corporation goes asking for some new addresses because they are still expanding, there just will NOT be any more. No amount of NAT is solving this problem, we're already close to 100% NAT on consumer connections, there are just too many new consumers who want an internet connection. On the server end of the connection, you just can't put NAT boxes in front of a big pile of servers, they need to be individually addressable. HTTP 1.1 bought us some time with virtual domains, but even that doesn't scale for much longer.
Once things start to get scarce in a few years, there will be address blocks available from black-market sources. But would you stake your company's connectivity on a block which was allocated to the U.S. military or a spam-friendly Chinese ISP? Sure, the block might not be announced right now, but what happens a month or two down the road after you have paid $$$ for the addresses and the original owner pops up and smacks you down in court for illegally announcing their block?
Its going to get ugly, this article and many like it at NANOG, RIPE, APNIC, IETF and other meetings are all sounding the end of freely available IPv4 space.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I'm genuinely conviced that this will happen. Partly for all of the address space wastage reasons that other people have given above (e.g. not assigning less than a 64 which in some ways could very loosely be seen as reducing the effective address space to 64 bits), but partly just because *every* time anyone has said "we'll never need that much" in the IT industry they have been proven totally wrong (think that Bill Gates quote, the one about 640k of RAM... ). It's just we haven't dreamed up the application yet.
You seem to have missed the point of my post there. In fact you don't seem to have read the first line.
Nowhere in my post did I say that NAT is the solution to the address space shortages, of course it isn't. We need IPv6.
My post was all about the reasons why NAT won't die, and why it dosen't necessarily deserve to be seen as a bad thing, even when there is plenty of address space available.
For the last and final time you are NOT going to see IpV6 any time soon. Powerful forces WANT you to be NATed. They would like your ISP to provide you an address that is already NATed if they don't already. Would IpV6 be great yes yes it would and it does solve most of the problems with IpV4 especially running out of host address. The powers that be don't want more 'hosts' on the internet though. They want only corporation and select groups of publishers to be hosts. The rest of you are to be clients so you can pay for the services they host. They don't want to have to compete with community hosted sites. The telcos many of whom make up the internet back bone don't want you makeing free calls with VOIP they want their toll networks used. They don't want you running P2P apps without more difficulty then Joe Sixpack can manage. Yes when universal NAT does break p2p profoundly Joe Sixpack will be upset but still won't understand the need to demand IpV6. He also will simply continue to wonder where this promised internet phone whent and pay his long-distance bill every month.
IpV6 is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN any time soon don't hold your breath. When it does eventually happen they will make sure whatever is availible at comsumer costs is hopelessly crippled.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
With the IPv6 address space using more than 4 bytes, the packet headers will increase in size, there by limiting the data space. So with IPv6, less data can be transfered, which means slower downloads. I don't know about you, but I'm a speed freak (no, I'm not a drug addict). Unless they can find some way to compensate for this, I'll resist it as much as I can... and fail miserably.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
As per subject
DOD procurements rules will require IPv6 compliance for all IT gear by Fiscal Year 2008.
There's been some talk to the effect that those requirements might be loosened up if need be, though.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
It's funny to see that the people who keep shaking their heads left and right when "IPv6" is mentioned are mainly ALL in the U.S. Fact: China, Japan, Korea and MUCH of Europe will move to IPv6 first...and much sooner no matter what the U.S thinks. Control is the issue, those moving to v6 see it as an opportunity to move away from having to call a U.S. organization to get address allocation. Also..since DNS becomes REALLY important with v6 (try to memorize IPv6 addressess..) Europe could use it as a means of setting up their own root DNS servers to take control of the future address space. Whoever has the DNS servers that people use will get control, and if Europe/Asia defines that first they will have control.
Why would a washing machine need a firmware update? I'm using the same washer I bought fifteen years ago. I don't think it even has a computer in it, just a couple of mechanical dials. What could a computer make a washer do that the old fashioned tech won't?
Say the computer does a better job of timomng the spin cycle; a firmware update suggests design flaws or bad software.
Some of you young nerds STILL don't get it- new tech is only better if it's better. Buying dog food over the internet is a losing proposition. Weren't you around in the dotcom bust?
Now, when they come out with a washer and dryer that will put the clothes and soap in all by itself, and then put the clothes in the dryer, and then fold them and put them away I'll gladly buy one.
Until then, internet enabling the washing machine just gives somebody an opportunity to crhack your washer. Great, you come home to 300 gallons of water on the floor.
Dumb.
(mind reading capcha ="predict")
Read the standards and allocation policies for IPv6. The minimum amount of address space that the registry expects any end subscriber to get from the ISP is a /48 or /64 at a minimum. Given that fact, it will be quite easy for an ISP to justify a mere 800,000 addresses.
/128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting.
/48 assignments to end sites are required to be registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs in such a way that the RIR/NIR can properly evaluate the HD-Ratio when a subsequent allocation becomes necessary. /48's must be registered address spaces. eg apnic, arin etc needs to be notified of the end user / end company it is assigned to.
That's funny from the link you provided I read the line
I'd say that almost all current ISP's would sell that as a standard home user address allocation, and charge for anything bigger similar to what they do already.
Additionally also stated
However, all
This translates to all
From that extra volume of work I'd have to say ho home user would ever get that without paying for it.
I feel I must point out your link was to apnic.net (asia pacific region), NOT ARIN (which most follow) or equivilent links to RIPE etc.
See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presenta tions/pdf/ripe51-ipv4-lifetime-rev.pdf.
I have heard it said that Cisco draged their feet because of patent issues with IPv6, so are waiting for those patents to run out.
Anyone got corroboration?
I know how to get this machine I'm typing on called "barry" to be given an IP address and then have DYN_DNS update my BIND installation remember that "barry" is IP address 192.168.48 currently. I can rely on any machine in my domain to be able to "ping barry" correctly.
However, I get my AAAA address from radvd for "barry". However, DYN_DNS isn't working. So how can I get "ping barry" to work? Am I going to have to give the same IP addy out and fill in the AAAA record by hand? Or what?
Yrs in bafflement.
Who sets servers to use DHCP? That's what I want to know. Mind if I ask if you've actually migrated a whole company from one ISP to another using this method? Sounds great in theory, but I find it difficult to believe that it actually works out so smoothly in real life.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
You read right - when it is absolutely known that only one device is there, give it a
With IPv6 space so abundant, there is no reason for them to not assume that and just give them out by default.
I didn't interpret it that way... key works "LIR or its supordinate ISPs". Sounds like they just want the ISP to keep accurate records that they can present to the registry as justification for its allocated address space. They already have to do that with IPv4 space anyway if they want portable allocations directly from the registry (which most sizable ISPs do).
I think the others have similar pratices... that is, in general, end subscribers are supposed to get get
Be my guest. I want 10% of the gross, though.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
I didn't interpret it that way... key works "LIR or its supordinate ISPs". Sounds like they just want the ISP to keep accurate records that they can present to the registry as justification for its allocated address space. They already have to do that with IPv4 space anyway if they want portable allocations directly from the registry (which most sizable ISPs do).
/48 unless they paid extra. So I'd argue good isp's would give out a /64 (it's the best of both worlds, no paperwork, while providing for multiple devices)
/128 address block. yes, the ISP is playing games, but that being said talk to most isp's and they will either want to charge you extra (and then assign extra IP's on the same connection), or flat out say no, 1 connection = 1 computer. Many have similar clauses in the T&C's
Even for non-portable address allocations you need to fill out the paperwork if you're assigning address blocks.
My point is still that if an ISP has to fill out extra paperwork then they will charge for it. I've worked for an ISP and know how difficult it can be to get customers to fill out the forms even when their business depends on it.
For this reason I doubt any home users would get a
As for the
Of course, some of us recall when 10/8 was MILnet. Every time I configure something in net 10 I feel like I should look over my shoulder for the kid with the M-16 telling me to get back behind the flight line.
if you try to do both IPv4 and IPv6 on the hardware, you take the load way up.
On what kinds of hardware? Are you talking about old cisco catalyst switches like the 5500? Maybe first generation 6500s? But with newer switching/routing hardware, native IPv6 hardware processing support is there. Not just the stuff on the market this year (although I'm pretty much seeing close to 80% support in the current crop), IPv6 support has been getting included in hardware for at least the last 3 or 4 years on the higher end kit.
Sure, some manufacturers are charging extra for the firmware to enable IPv6, that can't last for much longer. As soon as Cisco makes IPv4/IPv6 a standard feature in all of their IOS offerings (from IPBase upwards), then all the others will include it for free.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Geez, I wonder why the U.S. is moving so slowly on the conversion to IPv6?
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You are right. Re-reading your first line, I can't think of where I got that idea. Yes, NAT will be around forever, its too useful of a technology and well on its way to maturity.
There are enough other posts in this thread from people who think that NAT is the saving technology which means there will never be a need for IPv6, ever. I'll go rant in another thread.
Sorry
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
NAT is a useful tool, but like many tools, it's been abused and bent to fit. On the other hand, some protocols like SIP do *not* do any favours when IP addresses are translated.
I do not think the use of NAT has been exhausted: many mobile/cellular operators use nasty NAT tricks for mobile terminals (i.e. phones doing GPRS/EDGE)... and some consumer ISPs do it too. As ipv4 space becomes harder to get, I can see that NATting by ISPs will become more of a problem, so instead of counting yourself lucky getting a static IP, you'll be asking for a static port forwarding instead or something equally nasty.
I work for an ISP as a programmer and the network engineers scoff at the idea of needing to roll out ipv6, saying that they'd only do it if big customers began to ask for it. Given that we're doing VOIP now, and NATting by customers is a problem, I would prefer them to bite the bullet and just get on with it!
As you say, there are v few ISPs who do ipv6 on DSL, the only one I can think of is A&A in the UK.
on the /128 point, I don't mean to sound like I told you so, but
/48 of IPv6 address space if a customer wishes to deploy it on their internal network.
/128 (note I'm not affiliated with them in any way, but saw the link on another post to this topic)
from http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/services/adsl
Our ADSL service is IPv6 enabled; all customers will get a single static IPv6 address allocated to them by default if their equipment can support it. We can also allocate a
Sounds like by default they will give a
This would be more interesting except for two things. I have heard how we will run out of IPV4 addresses before. In fact I have been hearing this for 10 years or more! It is difficult to get worried about this when we have already passed several of the predicted dates for the "end of the internet". CIDR, DHCP, and NAT have all helped to conserve the available addresses.
Then there is the question of why we should listen to Cisco. They are not in charge of allocating the address space nor do they run the backbone. (Administrate vs. run on their routers.) They do have a vested interest in selling new products to support IPV6.
It is unfortunate that IP didn't start with a bigger address space. Eventually recycling poorly used class A and B blocks is going to run out. Eventually we will move to IPV6 (assuming there isn't an IPV7 by then). But I suspect there is still some room to squeeze and no one is going to change until they have to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IPV6 == Duke Nukem For Ever
chris@imogen ~ $ whois 51.0.0.0
OrgName: Department of Social Security of UK
OrgID: DSSU
Address: Naming and Addressing Authority c/o DITA
Address: Government Buildings - GZI
Address: Moorland Road
Address: Lytham St. Annes, Lancashire FY8 3ZZ
City:
StateProv:
PostalCode:
Country: GB
NetRange: 51.0.0.0 - 51.255.255.255
CIDR: 51.0.0.0/8
NetName: ITSANET
NetHandle: NET-51-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Direct Assignment
Comment:
RegDate: 1991-09-16
Updated: 1999-04-13
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-10-16 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
That's 16777215 routeable addresses.
Why do they need enough for every unemployed Briton to have four or five each?
I don't see what the problem is. If you only have one host you get a /128. If you have more than one host, they'll give you a /48 on request.
hmm, thanks, i'd not thought of that. HP do some nice sounding ADSL2 modules for their routers and have equal features _save WLAN_ plus you get GbE ports, but they're not in the same price class, by a long way
p roducts_data_sheet0900aecd8028a976.html
so i did my research, and if you read the product spec at http://cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps380/
you find:
876: ADSL over ISDN (ADSL2/ADSL2+ hardware ready)
877: ADSL over analog telephone lines (ADSL2/ADSL2+ hardware ready)
which may mean all or nothing, as these won't be standard WICs, but this does somewhat contradict your first thought, and I'd say this is one very featured router for small office / home lan use. Moreover they actually got around to supplying (some kind of) GUI setup with these . . .
thinking of geting one, not pumping the product.
In 2-5000 years.
Cisco can go climb a tree as long as they keep BrodCom in business. BrodCom has yet to open enough docmentation even via NDA to do IPv6, network testing and debuging, network application writing. From experience I wrote them once because I wanted to do just a fun little game that could be used played wirelessly-I was basicly told to go to hell. Now what kind of response is that to a rank ameture? Not asking them anything major just some tips. Anyway carry on.
If broadband routers can't make native IPv6 connections, ISPs can deploy IPv6 Tunnel brokers [RFC 3053] so customers can tunnel over the old routers. A tunneling software patch (tunnel setup protocol) sets up tunnels from customer computers to an IPv6 tunnel router. Tunnel brokers can also be deployed with a "prefix delegation" patch that can be applied to broadband routers to make them a simple IPv6 routers.
NAT makes it very expensive to deploy most innovative new IP applications (VOIP, IPTV, Peer-to-peer) as each app typeically needs some type of gateway "middlebox" to get around NAT in order to connect users. In the old ARPANET they retired NCP in favor of IP [See RFC 801] to move to an end-to-end model so it would be easier (and cheaper) to deploy new applications. NAT has broken that model.
Sig: Netrangerrr is the North American IPv6 Task Force Transition Technology Director
See: http://www.nav6tf.org/
"As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Sorry to be a ludite but this is really not an issue. Greanted we're placing more devices on-line, but so what? If I need to telnet into my toaster, I can just have my router forward a particular toaster port to it. He doesn't NEED his own IP. Similarly, do all the 1000-plus apartments in my building need to have separate IPs? Why? Most people read e-mail and look at websites, they don't need to host anything. We can all be on a LAN with a single internet IP, just like resnet in college was. Why not? if somebody needs an IP they can have their service set up that way but most of us don't give a shit.
I know, I know, there are more people in the world than there are IP addresses or whatever, but so what? I'd say that billions of people don't have a shot at owning a PC in their life anyway. Those who do can probably share IPs too.
It's a made-up crisis. There's nothing wrong with IPv6 but there's absolutely no dire need for it.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
It mentions lack of support on current DSL routers....DUH!!! Did VCR's have DVD support before it was released? Did analogue TV's start shipping with digital tuners before Digital TV started broadcasting? Mum and dad will not spend an extra $50 on a router because it supports IPv6, which we may need in "2 to 10 years". Even I would not spend the extra money unless the technology was on the horizon. The infrastrucure roll out needs to begin before the products will hit consumer shelves.
> You read right - when it is absolutely known that only one device is there, /128. IE, for the end of a point-to-point interface. In your /48s or /64s since home networks are so abundant these days.
/120 (internet-connected 256 devices) would be sufficient thank you. As a side benefit, you wouldn't have any heating bills in the middle of winter. Electricity bills for air-conditioning yes, heating no.
> give it a
> hypothetical situation the ISP is playing games. They should be giving out
>
Planet earth calling asdfghjklqwertyuiop... have you ever considered the logistitics of stashing ***2^64 PHYSICAL DEVICES IN YOUR HOME***??? You can't get that many RFID tags into a large mansion, let alone cellphones or PC's. Even a
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
> NAT makes it very expensive to deploy most innovative new IP applications
> (VOIP, IPTV, Peer-to-peer) as each app typeically needs some type of gateway
> "middlebox" to get around NAT in order to connect users.
Have you considered the implications... of the average home user running a server accepting unsolicited connections from the internet? Have you considered the implications... of the average home user running ***A WINDOWS SERVER*** accepting unsolicited connections from the internet??? No thanks.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
(NT)
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
It's all about how you view the use of Ip addresses to start with. The "old guys" have this idea of everything with it's own IP address pie in the sky type thing. Unfortunately, they hoarded huge chunks of numbers up front making it very difficult for the rest of us to implement such grand schemes. The flip side is who wants every IP in your office to be routable? That's utterly stupid if all those PCs were windows. Nats and Firewalls in corperate/small home nework are the only thing holding back the virus/spyware/worm situation from being worse!! having set up corperate networks, it's a NICE thing to assign non-routable IPs to your office setup... it ensures your firewall can't be easily breached by something you forgot. Nat'ing is here to stay... we don't WANT people poking behind our firewalls... we don't want people to know about any internal IP other than the public address of our web page. Think of it like PBX in the phone world.. who want's their internal extention in the phone book for the world???
Mr. President, is that you?
Actually by changing to more efficient CIDR addressing [RFC 1519] IPv4 address allocation was made more efficient. That, along with the temporary aberration that was NAT, has made IPv4 last longer.
NetRangerrr is a member of NAV6TF
see www.nav6tf.org
"As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Fine by me. My router+firewall should be doing IPv4 nat to the inside world. from my external router interface to ISP and on should be IPv6. If I choose to do NAT or not is my business, but the ISP can open up all kinds of options just by trying to do IPv6 if supported and fallback if not. Makes perfect sense to me.
There is a large 'aftermarket' collection of addons to IPv4 (QoS, IPsec) that will become integrated parts of IPv6 - that too drives its adoption.
And the present solution with Network Address Translation (NAT) creates all sorts of problems for point to point work.
But let me put it a different way: network vendors are always looking for new revenue, and this is like a blank cheque for both sale of new kit as well as overcharging for old stock ("umm, we don't really do IPv4 anymore, but at extra cost we will support your legacy equipment" - with our large warehouse of old $10 Realtek cards which we'll sell you at $100 a throw). There is no way this is not going to happen - they want that $$ (aka your tax dollars).
[yeah, I know I'm a cynic but I've already planned some of those migrations - and I mean *BIG* ones]
Insert
At RIPE-51 Geoff Huston gave a presentation about the IPv4 address lifetime: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51/presenta tions/uploads/Wednesday/huston-ipv4_address_lifeti me_revisited.pdf
The presentation has a lot of nice graphs, gives estimations of address exhaustion based on Geoff's models, and talks a little about what could happen after IANA and the RIRs run out of addresses.
It is not even routed!
Apparently it is their equivalent of network 10.
Take back and re-allocate.
.. he apologies for taking up valuable IP address space, meanwhile he browns my toast nicely over ssh.
Don't blame NAT, blame buggy NAT implementations. Letting P2P UDP traffic through regular NAT is actually very easy, see RFC3489. Good enough for VOIP, sufficient for file sharing which sadly has to re-implement most of TCP.
Sigh... Come on now, this only requires third grade reading comprehension skills. Look at my original post he was replying to. I know how many addresses 2^64th is. I myself said in that post "That's over three times the surface area of the earth. Measured in square millimeters. For your network alone". The point that statement was to refute his statement that "we will run out eventually, and much sooner than we expect".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I mostly work in tech pubs (when I'm working), and this has been a constant issue for me. At some badly managed companies, I've seen engineers add SuperKewl Features to the product without authorization, thinking they can just throw them over the wall to the customers and forget about them. Wrong. I have to document their damn features, and that costs. If I don't document their damn features, then tech support has to handle the resulting calls, and that costs even more. And if tech support tries to tell a big customer, "Oh, that's an unofficial feature, we don't support it," that really costs!
If you work for the Federal Gov't,the OMB in Memorandum M05-22 has now mandated migration to IPv6 by 6/2008.
This may actually be a little slow, since Microsoft has stated in briefings to Federal Agencies that Windows Vista (Longhorn) will ship with IPv6 as the natvie protocol.
What a boon to virus-writers. Encrypted IPv6 layer 3 sockets that drill through firewalls like a laser beam!
Damn the network security, full speed ahead!
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
Babelfish translation of the article:
Cisco announce that everyone shoudl upgrade their cisco routers and aplpiances to IPv6 routers and appliances.
When quizzed about software updates or firmware flashes Cisco looked bemused and said "hello this is IPV6!!!!!!!"
of course the most interesting thing is... [Out of address space, recipient 255.255.255.256 does not exist]
D'oh!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Maybe a new troll modding system needs implemented to weed out the weaker trolls. At least then, new gibberish will be good gibberish.