Slashdot Mirror
ARIN Letter Says Two More Years of IPv4
dew4au writes "A reader over at SANS Internet Storm Center pointed out a certified letter his organization received from ARIN. The letter notes that all IPv4 space will be depleted within two years and outlines new requirements for address applications. New submissions will require an attestation of accuracy from an
organizational officer. It also advises organizations to start addressing publicly accessible assets with IPv6. Is ARIN hoping to scare companies into action with the specter of scarce resources? This may be what's needed to spur adoption since there appears to be no business case for IPv6 deployment."
When IPv6 was announced, one of the benefits was that everything could have its own IP address; even your toaster!
So as for a business case, what about the internet toaster business? If we don't switch to IPv6, what will they do?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Nothing gets fixed until it breaks so fully that people can't ignore it any longer. ARIN should just hand out the last of their IP assignment already and then we can move on with actually deploying IPv6.
I just got back from the ARIN meeting this week and the letters are, indeed, a "scare tactic". Network providers keep reporting that PHBs won't spend any money on IPv6 even though engineers are begging for it. Most corporate officers probably think IP is only Intellectual Property and this is an attempt to draw their attention to the fact that the network world as they know it is going to end soon and that the only way to avoid serious problems is to either stop growing or to start IPv6 deployment. PHBs sometimes get the idea when they realize that not spending some money will lead to big problems in a few years. Others figure that if it's over a year away, it really does not matter because it won't impact their bonus this year, so it may not work, but we can hope.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
Case in point. Thought it was supposed to be 2010? Now it's 2011.
IPv4 addresses won't magically be exhausted one night. They'll just start getting more expensive.
Advice: on VPS providers
As I keep pointing out on each IPv6 story, there will be little motivation to move to IPv6 until you can hit major sites, like cnn.com and slashdot.org, using nothing but IPv6 packets.
We've made a bit of progress, in that now, if you have IPv6 connectivity to "the Internet", you can in theory do the name resolution entirely by IPv6 packets, now that the root name servers support IPv6.
Note to the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" crowd: yes, you can form an IPv6 packet with an IPv4 address, but that doesn't mean the target machine will actually be able to understand it - it is still a completely different packet type than an IPv4 packet.
So, does slashdot.org have IPv6 enabled? Does the colo housing slashdot.org's servers route IPv6 packets from the Internet to the slashdot.org servers? Can "the Internet" route IPv6 packets to the colo?
If a tech site like slashdot.org doesn't have the ability to handle IPv6 traffic, then why should I get all hot and bothered about trying to get IPv6? And if I'm not going to demand it, then why should my ISP spend the effort to supply it?
www.eFax.com are spammers
ARIN really is the most trustworthy source you could have for a claim like that, though. Sure, many have made the claim before, but this is the next best thing to having Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, and Thor all sit down with you around a burning bush and explain the importance of implementing IPv6.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Fortunately, nobody in their right mind would let Slashdot design a new network protocol.
Awesome idea. We'll give Google 1/40, The government can 2/40, IBM will get 3/40, etc etc etc
Same problem. The ipv6 is not a "bad" idea, it's just sort of like...imagine in 1950s if the phone company decided "we could go with area codes to subdivide numbers to prevent running out, or we could use letters AND numbers".
Can you imagine the upheaval?
In a lot of ways, that would have been even easier to deal with, because everyone's phone was owned by AT&T. New phones could have been issued without too much problem.
No, imagine it instead in the mid 1980s. Ma Bell doesn't own the phones any more, in fact there are tons of cheap phones available, cell phones are starting to come out, and there are still rotary AND push button phones.
That's more like what the IPv6 switch is like. Do you give the new people 2 numbers, so that grandma can still call them? How long is it before you stop accepting legacy phones that only have 10 dialing options? How the hell do you get DTMF to work with 36 numbers? Do we need area codes? It would be weird without them, but we don't really need them.
The equivalent of these questions are still being asked. Just a couple of months ago, there was a huge to-do about NAT and IPv6. "IPv6 is a world without NAT". The hell it is. My internal routers don't get publicly routable IP addresses, even if I have to NAT back to IPv4.
When the wrinkles get ironed out, we're going to wonder how we ever did without it. During the transition, it's going to be hell for everyone (with the possible exception of the clueless end user, who might have to buy a new router at most).
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Right. Most people are sitting on unaddressable addresses. The ANT census is pretty explicit on this point. Roughly 4% of the IPv4 address space is in use, 30% is not allocated at all, and the remainder (66%) is trapped due to inefficient allocations.
Just a couple of months ago, there was a huge to-do about NAT and IPv6. "IPv6 is a world without NAT". The hell it is. My internal routers don't get publicly routable IP addresses, even if I have to NAT back to IPv4.
I agree with the sentiment - however, it's one of policy, not mechanism. NAT is a pretty poor substitute for a router that implements policy (known as a firewall). NAT has literally an all-or-nothing granularity. For instance, I might want to specify that an internal host can enable BitTorrent via UPnP, but under no circumstances can CIFS be allowed through - in either direction. An internal host sending a CIFS solicitation out does not mean a pinhole should be opened and some set of hosts (depending on cone of restriction) free to respond. NAT is just not a practical policy tool. It's an address space recovery tool. Reverse NAT, however, has some redeeming qualities for load balancing and failover - I'm not versed well enough in IPv6 to understand how they'd be implemented without NAT. (Anycast addressing, I suppose.)
But you can implement NAT in IPv6 just as much as in IPv4 if you wish. A router could appear to have a single interface ID and translate to/from that. It's largely unnecessary though since instead of a handful of IPv4 addresses you have an entire 64-bit space to yourself (and maybe even the SLN prefix, not sure about that).
IPv6 really is a major cleanup and simplification from IPv4. I'm slightly disconcerted by the increased dependency on DNS however.