Slashdot Mirror


China To Run Out of IPv4 Addresses In 830 Days

JagsLive writes "China is running out of IP addresses unless it makes the switch to IPv6. According to the China Internet Network Information Center, under the current allocation speed, China's IPv4 address resources can only meet the demand of 830 more days and if no proper measures are taken by then, new Chinese netizens will not be able to gain normal access to the Internet. Li Kai, director in charge of the IP business for CNNIC's international department, says that if a netizen wants to get access to the Internet, an IP address will be necessary to analyze the domain name and view the pages. At present, most of the networks in China use IPv4 addresses. As a basic resource for the Internet, the IPv4 addresses are limited and 80% of the final allocation IP addresses have been used."

9 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. 830 days? China? by suso · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try the whole world. According to this counter, the world will be out of IPv4 addresses in 768 days.

    1. Re:830 days? China? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      There would be a lot more available addresses if companies that were given entire /8 blocks in the 80s and 90s (Ford, IBM, AT&T, Halliburton, etc.) were to give back those blocks. Most of those companies aren't even really using their /8 blocks anymore, with most of the addresses going unadvertised.

  2. Re:What is the point in having a public IP address by Artraze · · Score: 5, Informative

    > When your WHOLE COUNTRY is behind a firewall? NAT the hell out of that!

    The firewall is more figurative than literal. My understanding is that it basically bans certain IPs/domains. That can be done with a stateless system, while a true NAT/firewall would need to track all packets of all connections of all users. Not impossible, but insanely expensive. Plus it would have the unpleasant side effect of actually firewalling China (i.e. no incoming connections), whereas now they just don't let you view certain things.

    The whole point is largely moot anyway. First, as was pointed out above, the entire world is estimated to run out in about 780 days, so they've apparently got more time then the rest of use. Second, the primary usage of IPs comes from blocks assigned to institutions and businesses, with the latter _requiring_ incoming connections. Could a business have one public IP and NAT/load balance their servers and whatnot? Sure, but they could always switch to IP6, which is gonna be a lot cheaper than all these NATs

  3. Re:NAT? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Heck, they already firewall everybody -- why not just break IPs up into NATted subnets? The 10.x.x.x range should give them enough room for awhile, right?

    Hmm.... 16,777,216 IP addresses divided by 1,300,000,000 citizens.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Blocks vs. sub-blocks. by DrYak · · Score: 5, Informative

    So the world runs out of addresses before China runs out?

    The world will run out of new blocks to allocate (as in "254.xxx.yyy.zzz"), before China gives out all addresses in the allocated blocks it has (as in "www.254.254.254").

    Nonetheless, IPv4 can only provide a little lower than 253^4 different addresses. What makes it worse is that it's allocated in chunks (some chunks are reserved like the 127.x.y.z family - other addresses may be free but land in a range which is allocated to some company and thus can't be used by your computer).

    Thus even if some providers use dynamic IP (only those machine which are connected have an IP address - thus an ISP needs a chunk only as big as the number of simultaneously connected users, not as the total number of subscriber), and lot of router use NAT (only 1 single IP address is visible on ther internet. all the machine are visible through this address and use a private address on the internal network),
    in a world where everything including your fridge is connected to teh interweb 24h a day, 7 days a week, we will quickly run into a situation where no more IPv4 address can be assigned to a new machine :
    - the ISP has ran out of addresses in its chunk because there are more simultaneous connection (because everyone stays perpetually connected) that there are free address in the chunk (china will reach this point in 2-3 years)
    - and there are no more new free chunk to allocate for the providers (all are already either reserved like the 10.*.*.* and 192.168.*.* range, or have already been allocated to others) thus now way to give more chunks with more IP to the ISPs (the world will reach that point too in about 2 years).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Blocks vs. sub-blocks. by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Informative

      In our small business IP telephony is handled with DHCP. All calls get routed through an asterisk server. So we only need one static IP address for the whole phone system. We need asterisk as a PBX anyway, so it's no extra fuss.

    2. Re:Blocks vs. sub-blocks. by Bryansix · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually NAT DOES provide some sort of security. That is because by default nobody can see which devices sit behind the NAT. They also can't directly address them. So you want to see if your milk expired at home while you are at work so you can buy more if you need to? That problem has been solved. Your fridge had NO problem making outbound connections. It CAN upload the latest stats to a website that either you host yourself or a service from your fridge manufacturer. Need a better solution? Map the Public IP of the NAT but with a high unused port number to your fridge. Then whenever you connect to your SINGLE IP address but on that specific port it will serve up the stats on the fridge.

      See there are two solutions already to your perceived problem.

      Does your small business with 60 employees want to use IP telephony? In this case, each PC (or each telephone) needs a public IP. You can get away with routing this at the application layer, but why bother when it doesn't actually gain you anything?

      Wrong! I deployed 100 Hosted VOIP phones in a NAT environment. My Router has 11 public IP addresses but the phones all use the same one. If I used SIP trunks instead it would be the same deal. Only the phone server would need a public IP for the SIP trunks; not each phone.

    3. Re:Blocks vs. sub-blocks. by ydrol · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Actually NAT DOES provide some sort of security"

      I agree, though being pedantic it's PAT and not (just) NAT

    4. Re:Blocks vs. sub-blocks. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Informative

      So why do you need NAT instead of a non-translating firewall?