Slashdot Mirror


Interop Returns 16 Million IPv4 Addresses

klapaucjusz writes "Every discussion about IPv4 address exhaustion prompts comments about whether Apple (or MIT, or UCB, or whoever) needs all of those addresses. Interop has set the example by returning 16 million IPv4 addresses to the ARIN pool, extending the IPv4 address exhaustion deadline by a whole month."

270 comments

  1. Delaying the inevitable by Gonzoisme · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How long are they going to keep this up for? Jeez.

    1. Re:Delaying the inevitable by shentino · · Score: 1

      Sooner or later, hoarders are going to scalp them.

    2. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How long are they going to keep this up for? Jeez.

      Yes, but this at least gives people an extra month to make sure everything is ready to go.

      It's actually refreshingly nice to see that for once, a company has turned around and said: "I know this is ours, but we aren't using it. Someone else might need it more. Here you go chaps!".

      Have you heard of Altruism?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:Delaying the inevitable by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How long are they going to keep this up for? Jeez.

      Yes, but this at least gives people an extra month to make sure everything is ready to go.

      But we are nowhere near that. We are not even starting.

    4. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We've known this was coming for years. Do you really think adding on another month is going to do a single thing?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:Delaying the inevitable by maxume · · Score: 1

      It pushed any problems a month into the future.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Delaying the inevitable by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently, if IPv4 addresses keep getting returned at an average rate of at least 16,000,000 per month, they could keep this up forever.

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    7. Re:Delaying the inevitable by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      It's actually refreshingly nice to see that for once, a company has turned around and said: "I know this is ours, but we aren't using it. Someone else might need it more. Here you go chaps!".

      At some point the powers-that-be will simply say "you're not using it, give it back"

    8. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Informative

      We've known this was coming for years. Do you really think adding on another month is going to do a single thing?

      Yep, it will add another month. That is a single thing.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Listen Fluffy,

      Lets not bring cold hard logic and rules to a place that clearly should be fluffy, full of pink clouds and unicorns prancing around pooping rainbows.

      - Fluffeh

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    10. Re:Delaying the inevitable by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      Altruism doesn't exist. They lose nothing and gain goodwill.

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    11. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Windows+Breaker+G4 · · Score: 1

      Well when it does happen I know I'm good at work, they have the whole 129.65 block of addresses because for some reason everyone needs the same ip both internally and externally. While it is convenient, I really doubt it's needed. Wonder how many addresses are hiding like that

      --
      brickspeed.net for your old Volvo performance addiction
    12. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Zibri · · Score: 1

      They lose IPv4 address space. But I guess thay've made a cost analysis and concluded that the goodwill outweights that loss. I think it's awesome nonetheless (even though the win is negligible).

    13. Re:Delaying the inevitable by amorsen · · Score: 1

      At some point the powers-that-be will simply say "you're not using it, give it back"

      Which powers would that be? The various registries can appeal to the community, but when it comes down to it, every ISP picks which routes they accept.

      If you want to force the hands of the ISPs, you need legislation. World-wide, if you want it to be effective.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    14. Re:Delaying the inevitable by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once the IPv4 space runs out, it is likely that there will be a secondary market for /24's. That /8 could make quite a bit of money if carved into /24's. It would also be another 65k routes for the global routing table, which would be no fun at all.

      We should appreciate their gesture; they did lose something and we are all slightly richer because of what they did.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    15. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 1

      Who is "We" ?

      IPv6 is ready, for years.

    16. Re:Delaying the inevitable by bestalexguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      No need to worry, actually. It won't take longer than it took the US to switch to metric. People will just realize it's a better option and start using it voluntarily.

    17. Re:Delaying the inevitable by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Nobody is working on migration, at least where I am. My ISP doesn't publish a migration plan. Any migration to IPv6 is years away for me.

    18. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Lennie · · Score: 1

      That's pretty stupid, as currently:

      Burnrate all allocations last 30 days
      SUM: 16753536
      SUM in /8: 0.998588562011719

      Only 7 to go (actually 12, but the last 5 will have a completely different policy).

      After that, the RIR (the organisation doing the work for your 'continent') will have some left, but they will burn through that in less then a year, maybe 6 months.

      After that, the price of IPv4 will be determined on Ebay or where ever.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    19. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Lennie · · Score: 0

      It's is a finite resource.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    20. Re:Delaying the inevitable by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > We've known this was coming for years. Do you really think adding on another month is going to do a single thing?

      Yes. More people will think that others will do the same and we can get by another year or ten.

      Still, massive kudos to Interop.

    21. Re:Delaying the inevitable by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Maybe a shortage of IPV4 addresses will lead to more profit for ISPs.

    22. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand, there will not be a secondary market for /24's, since according to the rules if someone (say, Interop) would try to sell /24's, then it's a breach of their agreement, it shows that they don't "need" the adresses, and the whole /8 may be simply taken from them w/o compensation and redistributed to others as currently

    23. Re:Delaying the inevitable by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Why would they sell /24's only? The people who have been hoarding IPv4 space (and there are several who have been at it for years) understand aggregation.

      As to why those people did not hoard? Altruism. Kudos to them.

    24. Re:Delaying the inevitable by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > Altruism doesn't exist.

      Reality disagrees with you, says my firsthand experience of people donating anonymously and having no direct or indirect return from it with almost certain probability.

      > they lose nothing
      We'll see how much those addresses were worth in a short time, I guess.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    25. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 1

      Even if you ISP doesn't provide it, you can bypass it.

      My ISP, one of the most popular and inexpensive here in France, support IPv6 since several years. As their margin is very low, I suppose they have been able to do so for a minimal cost.

      Even if you are not aware of any plan, any software and hardware manufacturer has think about it. This is a requirement for US Department of Defense, that's not a market you can ignore easily.

    26. Re:Delaying the inevitable by delinear · · Score: 1

      If we can just reclaim enough to get us safely past 2012, we can then start looking at IPv6 migration without the huge worry that it might be the cause for the end of life on earth (either that, or some other disaster will end life on earth and we won't much care about IP addresses).

    27. Re:Delaying the inevitable by delinear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I assume it reflects their confidence in a successful migration to IPv6 in the near future. Think about it this way, if they predict a future where we're stuck on IPv4 and go down the route of addresses being sold off to the highest bidder, they're giving away a massive asset for some goodwill return. If they believe that IPv6 will come in and render IPv4 redundant in the very near future, they're giving away effectively a resource that's soon to become useless for some goodwill return. The second sounds like a much better deal.

    28. Re:Delaying the inevitable by delinear · · Score: 1

      Sure if they're first to broach the subject of sale. Alternatively if you just sit on them until there are no more addresses, the powers that be may decide the only option is to relax the rules around resale, then it's time to cash in with full approval.

    29. Re:Delaying the inevitable by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Which powers would that be? The various registries can appeal to the community, but when it comes down to it, every ISP picks which routes they accept.

      If you want to force the hands of the ISPs, you need legislation. World-wide, if you want it to be effective.

      Why it'll be the US govt! Once they complete their takeover of the Internet. They invented it so they feel they already own it. Attempting to exert this high level of control would be justified as the only way to avert a national security crisis, and my-deity won't someone think of the children! I'm sure they might even find some hidden clause in the Patriot act.

    30. Re:Delaying the inevitable by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Altruism doesn't exist. They lose nothing and gain goodwill.

      I would agree that businesses can't be altruistic, but to deny individual altruism is simply cheap cynicism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Delaying the inevitable by hviniciusg · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in my opinion, they could have made a lot of money whit those IP address, i mean, if they are yours, you can sell them, lets say 1 Dollar each one, that's, 3 +2 = 5 -4 = 1 ..... 16 Megadolars :D not bad. What about the other big companies, will they give it for free.

      On the other hand, they would worth nothing after IPV6 is completely adopted and giving them away now could benefit you with the karma (public image) of your company. but we all know that IPV6 will take a really long time before it actually gains some kinetic movement.

      Bye

    32. Re:Delaying the inevitable by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice for you. We are.

      I work for a major telecom company. We are scant months away from all of our TV customer's STBs exclusively talking ipV6. Internet cable modems will be following next year.

      Some of us - many, in fact - _are_ very near to that.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    33. Re:Delaying the inevitable by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      This really doesn't help at all, as was originally stated, it just delays the inevitable.

      People aren't going to actually DEAL with running of address until we do. Until then, people will continue to operate as normal because its far cheaper to do nothing now and then just do the work later or even better, find out that theres a different solution later.

      The problem isn't that switching is hard, its that no one is bothering to do it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    34. Re:Delaying the inevitable by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      "Adding another month", will "add another month", so terribly clever. What will doing so actually accomplish though? Absolutely nothing. The problem here is not the result of not having enough time.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    35. Re:Delaying the inevitable by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong but aren't those closed systems? I am talking about my ISP giving me ipv6 from my home to any other point in the world.

    36. Re:Delaying the inevitable by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      firsthand experience of people donating anonymously and having no direct or indirect return from it

      They still gain something. Even if it is illogical and completely immaterial. Value is relative.

      We'll see how much those addresses were worth in a short time, I guess.

      My understanding is that the addresses can not be legally resold no matter what their value.

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    37. Re:Delaying the inevitable by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's approximately 30 single things, if you define "thing" to be one day. It could be even more than 30 depending on your definition of "thing". Just think of all the femtoseconds it's saving us.

    38. Re:Delaying the inevitable by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Nobody is working on migration, at least where I am.

      If it is in your area of competence, then you need to be saying, in writing, to your supervisor(s) that "this is likely to be a problem ; we need to address this and have a plan ; here are some ideas about where we need to be and how to get there". If you don't, you're failing in your professional competence ; if you supervisor tells you to STFU and get back to the salt mines, then he's failing in his professional competence. That may not protect you when it comes time to execute the innocent, but you still need to do it. Or just move to another job, if you're afraid to even raise the topic.

      My ISP doesn't publish a migration plan.

      In the "how to get there" part of the above position, you may need to include "get a new ISP", and present a list of options. Your account manager at the ISP might be really interested to know about the outcome of such discussions, because he may be able to provide you with useful information.

      Any migration to IPv6 is years away for me.

      Retirement is years away too, but do you plan for that? Getting your 100000th employee may be years away for the payroll department, but they possibly use 6- or even 7-digit employee numbers "just in case".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    39. Re:Delaying the inevitable by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Still, massive kudos to Interop.

      And Fluffy said :

      At some point the powers-that-be will simply say "you're not using it, give it back"/p>

      Regardless of Fluffy's (very likely correct) point, by doing it voluntarily and ahead of time, substantial kudos to Interop. Free advertising doesn't hurt. Also the non-trivial point that by having "played fair" ahead of any mandatory deadlines, Interop will be in a good position to go to the back of the queue for mandatory stripping of unused blocks.

      Win-win for Interop.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    40. Re:Delaying the inevitable by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      you need legislation. World-wide, if you want it to be effective.

      Why it'll be the US govt! [...]They invented it so they feel they already own it.

      [SIGH] While DARPA was one of the biggest forces in creation of "the Internet", it wasn't by any means the only body from the only government involved. For a fact, significant chunks of development were done in London England and Manchester England, and the Nordic countries had non-trivial involvement too.

      Typical Septic braggadocio. No wonder half the world hates you.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    41. Re:Delaying the inevitable by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > Also the non-trivial point that by having "played fair" ahead of any mandatory deadlines, Interop will be in a good position to go to the back of the queue for mandatory stripping of unused blocks.

      No such thing will happen to pre-RIR prefixes. They are completely unregulated other than "whoever has the password for the maintainer object". And the large players with large assignments have been keeping it this way for the last years.

      So no, there will not be any mandatory giving back.

      Also, this space is not filled, but most likely fragmented. Renumbering is far from trivial. I renumbered a /17, I know what I am talking about.

      Finally, even if everyone gave back their unused prefixes, this would buy a year or two, tops.

      Support, implement, test & deploy IPv6. Now.

    42. Re:Delaying the inevitable by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      DCTs are closed systems. Cable Modems use public addresses. If you're getting an ipV4 DHCP address from your ISP, then to talk ipV6, you'll have to assign your own addresses, and encapsulate it the traffic. When we go ipV6 on the cable modems, customers will get a range (of something like 2^16) ipV6 addresses, and direct routing from them to the outside world.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    43. Re:Delaying the inevitable by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      MY workplace will take care of itself. I don't have a stake in it. I am talking about the ISP I use at home. I have a static IP address with sites hosted on it. The ISP I use appears to not have a roadmap to go to v6.

    44. Re:Delaying the inevitable by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I am talking about the ISP I use at home. I have a static IP address with sites hosted on it. The ISP I use appears to not have a roadmap to go to v6.

      Locate another ISP that offers you the service that you want and migrate. Tell the old ISP to fuck themselves sideways AFTER your traffic through them has dropped to negligible. If there's no ISP in your area that offers you what you want, then you need to either move, or take up a hosting option.

      But you knew all that. You're just having a moan, because you don't want that hassle, aren't you? But equally, you either choose to host these web sites, or you're making a profit from them. So you know what your options are.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Commendable, but by quicks0rt · · Score: 1

    Please, just let it run out already.

  3. There you go. by frozentier · · Score: 4, Funny

    Problem solved!

    1. Re:There you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Anthropogenic Global IP Address Shortage supporter you! Everything is perfectly fiDHCP lease expired

    2. Re:There you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once and for all!
      But-
      ONCE AND FOR ALL!

    3. Re:There you go. by julesh · · Score: 1

      I'm actually worried that this might be counter-productive. It's going to persuade the let's-wait-before-implementing-IPv6 people to wait a bit longer. Possibly more than it'll save. It'll be reported by the press with a "what were they panicking about?" tone, leading people who don't understand the issues to think of this as a storm-in-a-teacup that'll pass over without them doing anything, just like Y2K did.

    4. Re:There you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teacher: Once and for all...

      Student: ... but...

      Teacher: Once and for all!

      Gotta love Futurama!

    5. Re:There you go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once and for all!

    6. Re:There you go. by g253 · · Score: 1

      But...

      ONCE AND FOR ALL!

  4. IPs! OM NOM NOM NOM by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    IP ADDRESS MONSTER HUNGRY!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  5. Plenty more by Quicksilver · · Score: 1

    Nortel that is now nothing but a bankrupt shell has another 16 million.

    1. Re:Plenty more by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Nortel that is now nothing but a bankrupt shell has another 16 million.

      And the fact they are now 'nothing but a bankrupt shell' is exactly what's going to stop them from being able to take the specific affirmative actions that are required to return IP addresses.

      Their creditors are going to want those networks, and therefore, the IP addresses that go with them.

    2. Re:Plenty more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nortel has more than the 47.X class-A that they
              could reasonably give back. They have a sizeable
              flotilla of class-B and class-C networks that
              they acquired through M&A over time as well.

      When I worked there, I made more than one attempt
              to see if we could give some of it back. But
              alas, internal politics were an insurmountable
              force.

    3. Re:Plenty more by Gerald · · Score: 1

      AT&T and Level 3 charge money for addresses. Why can't Nortel?

    4. Re:Plenty more by sjames · · Score: 1

      OK, if they do the right thing, that's one more month...

    5. Re:Plenty more by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      I'm going by what's on wikipedia so please correct me, but class A is around 16 million addresses? Well they're currently going through one class A ( \8 block ) a month so it wouldn't exactly buy much extra time.

    6. Re:Plenty more by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is correct. If the class based system had kept up, we would have exhausted the ipv4 address space years ago.

      --
      SSC
    7. Re:Plenty more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hp has blocks from all the companies it has gobbled up (compaq, dec, tandem) on top of it's own 15/8 address space...

    8. Re:Plenty more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now they've been split up and those allocations are now split between at least 5 different companies. Good luck freeing up any significant chunk for a while yet.

    9. Re:Plenty more by nedwidek · · Score: 1

      Quite correct, but... I worked for IBM for 12 years. There was no real reason that IBM needs the entire 9/8 block. How many more months could we get if all of the class As were required to give up a large portion of those addresses? Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks.

      Anyone who argues that IPv6 is unnecessary is a fool. The migration is not going to be easy, especially once we hit the non-technical home user. Anything that pushes the date back on IPv4 exhaustion is good and shouldn't be derided. All of the ISPs need to start now. Even then it is going to be a real pain to get there by the time we run out of addresses.

      --
      Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
    10. Re:Plenty more by compro01 · · Score: 1

      2 years maximum (I'm assuming AT&T, Cogent, and Level3 are using their blocks usefully, and including the DOD's blocks), assuming they could even reconfigure their networks to make those blocks available before we hit exhaustion in about 8 months.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  6. Real cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ARIN is the actual cause of this problem, if IP allocation were governed for market forces instead of some dudes that demand paperwork and some justification, then IPv6 would be the response to the rising cost of IPs

    1. Re:Real cause by gclef · · Score: 1

      ARIN is neither the cause, nor the solution. ARIN is a community organization, so their policies are only what the greater ARIN community (ie, the present IP space users) ask for. Until the ARIN community asks for market-cost based allocation, ARIN won't do it. The converse is also true: the reason ARIN *isn't* using a market-cost based allocation system is that the actual users of IP space don't want it to be that way.

    2. Re:Real cause by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if IP allocation were governed for market forces instead of some dudes that demand paperwork and some justification...

      What are you talking about? IP allocat is governed by market forces.

      Who do YOU think ARIN is?

      Hint: ARIN is an industry organization whose members are the ISPs and resource holders in North America.

      Also, without ISPs all over the world recognizing ARIN's allocations, ARIN has no power of enforcement of its wishes, it simply does what its officers elected by the broader community of ISPs agree that they want ARIN to do.

  7. Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean really, as we start running low on addresses, more and more sites will just start NATing. I don't need a globally unique IP, I just need one unique within my network and then I can tunnel it out at the edge.

    You fundamentally only need hard addresses for your network edges and that's going to be a finite number of points into the foreseeable future.

    1. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who are you, the owner of rackspace?

    2. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So because NAT happens to work for you, and your rather basic needs, we should delay the inevitable instead of fixing the fundamental underlying problem.

      Got it.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Right, only criminals need a globally visible IP address for their personal computers, so that they can pirate stuff. As long as you only ever make connections to corporate-owned servers like a good little law-abiding citizen, NAT won't hurt you a bit.

    4. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      So because NAT happens to work for you, and your rather basic needs, we should delay the inevitable instead of fixing the fundamental underlying problem.

      Got it.

      Yes, well, you just described civilization.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Given that humans are the fundamental underlying problem, there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for getting rid of them.

    6. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't hurt? Sure it does. NATs, like firewalls - can't handle fragmentation.

    7. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Given that humans are the fundamental underlying problem, there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for getting rid of them.

      Actually, there's plenty of support for that, we call them "missile silos".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You do know that Y2K was (mostly) a yawn because of a massive push starting in '97 to be ready in time, right?

      You also realize you can't just stuff servers behind NAT right? And an awful lot of apps like p2p and VoIP work a lot better without NAT?

    9. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      So what about Google, Microsoft, Apple, Rackspace, Amazon and the millions of other ISPs, Datacenters, Science stations such as the LHC, etc that all need publicly addressable computers in mass quantities?

      It's easy to say that you don't need this and can happily live behind a NAT. That doesn't mean you represent the rest of the internet and it's millions of different use cases most of which do require the internet to work as it was designed.

    10. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  8. spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UCB needs those IPs, let MIT give theirs back!

  9. Fuck Slashdot 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is anyone else who usually uses the "classic" index on slashdot being defaulted back to this shitty 2.0 crap index, regardless of their preferences?

    1. Re:Fuck Slashdot 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I just noticed the switch too. /.'s interface is kind of annoying me lately. Why, for example, can't I have friend bubbles in classic? And does Post Anonymously REALLY have to be in white?

    2. Re:Fuck Slashdot 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashcode 2.0 is from 2002. The dynamic discussion shit is from sometime aruound 2004/2005. That has nothing to do with 2.0.

  10. Well, that was dumb by pclminion · · Score: 1

    Why didn't they wait until the supply/demand curves pushed the price of an IP into the dollar or more range? They could have turned their class A into tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars...

    1. Re:Well, that was dumb by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous. That cost is simply going to be passed-on the consumers. They asked for addresses before they had value, now they got it and it's theirs. Period (unless there are clauses in the agreement about having to return the ranges not in use). I unfortunately wasn't that quick and have to pay for a static IP.

      This comment was posted using 100% IPv6 and I laugh at your obsolescence (not necessarily true but we're getting there).

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    2. Re:Well, that was dumb by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They could have turned their class A into tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars...

      Unlikely. They would have to convince ARIN to allow them to go along with it, in order to have any transfer of addresses acknowledged in the proper places: without that, the only way to distribute IPs would be for them to get into the ISP and DNS business, providing IP and Reverse DNS services to people.

      Which could be more expensive than "tens of millions"

      Under current policies, they could have revokable sub-delegations of their IP address space acknowledged, if they signed the RSA agreement with ARIN, but to be able to make any type of permanent transfer, they would have to agree to the full RSA, making the IP space no longer "legacy", in other words, current policies would start applying to it, RIR fees, etc

  11. Hardly Significant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, we have another 0.004% to work with!

    Is it really necessary to bring this up every couple weeks? We know we're going to run out sooner or later; I don't need to read about how our projections were wrong yet again.

    Maybe I'll write a story about how I added 16 MB of RAM to my 4 gig system.

    1. Re:Hardly Significant by Dylan16807 · · Score: 1

      .4% And a several percent boost to the free amount.

  12. Start with the cell phone industry. by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm guessing the best place to free up IP4 blocks is with the cell phone industry. They could roll out IP6 and eventually drop IP4 depending on the model of your cell phone (dual IP schemes in place for the transition). That industry changes so rapidly anyways and has the largest consumer share over the personal computer. Plus, cell phone devices centrally managed for the most part anyways. Shouldn't be too difficult of a task. At least, not nearly as difficult as flipping home users and SMBs over to IP6 in the same amount of time.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That only works if the cell phone users don't mind being unable to connect to sites that don't support IPv6 at all - which could include their corporate sites, shopping sites, search engines, map, email, blog, "social" sites.

      Dual-IP no NAT schemes only work if you actually have IPv4 addresses - which we are running out of if you haven't noticed already.

      Schemes involving NAT "kinda" work, but if people really didn't mind using NAT, then we could skip going to IPv6 and stick with mass IPv4 NATing.

      --
    2. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Matt_R · · Score: 2, Interesting

      search engines

      www.google.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:8004::68

      map

      maps.google.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:8004::68

      email

      www.gmail.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:8004::53

      "social" sites.

      www.v6.facebook.com has IPv6 address 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3

    3. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Double NATing is a bad idea. All sorts of strangeness happens when connecting with a dialup VPN connection and whatnot.

      Of course, ISPs and data centers should convert to IP6 first. But come client side, I still think cell phones should be converted. A much more doable task in comparison to home use and SMB offices.

      And it's not just switching over to IP6. It's all the DNS, OS, and application support that goes along with it. Cell phones are pretty simple devices in comparison. They're centrally administered for the most part from a network side, and the technology has a high turnover. Phones that can't run IP6 will stay on IP4 until they're replaced. At most, 2 years on average. PCs and servers OTOH have a life span ranging in 5 years and beyond. So that's been my personal experience anyways.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by shitzu · · Score: 1

      at least my cellphone gets an address that is in the NATted private 10.x.x.x range so my provider does not really waste ipv4 public address space.

    5. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Cwix · · Score: 1

      we could skip going to IPv6 and stick with mass IPv4 NATing.

      Bite your tongue.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but these types of solutions make sense.

      We in the USA, Government and Corporations alike, don't like implementing solutions that make sense.

    7. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot www.blogger.com

    8. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Actually, it depends on your cellphone plan. Many data plans often give you just a private IP address, NAT'ed or double-NAT to the Internet. Considering most of the usage is just connecting to a remote server and getting information, this works fine. Many cheaper plans also go through a transparent HTTP proxy as well which caches and reduces image quality.

      Even the mobile stick/pods/hub plans are often NAT'ed. If you want to do VPN, there's often a VPN tier of service that gets you a real live IP address. If you want it, the cellphone industry makes you pay, as usual.

      It's all done because your plan determines which gateway you use, and if you're not authorized to use a particular gateway, either the connection is denied, or you get dinged heavily.

    9. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Matt_R · · Score: 1

      Probably because I've never used it :)

      Not that it matters, all of these sites will work just fine with NAT..

      It's the p2p and VPN type apps that really need a non-nat address.

    10. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      And what if you wanted, say, to ssh into the phone?

      This may be a weird idea for dumbphones, but things like n900 are just subnotebooks with phone capability.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    11. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      6to4, dawg, 6to4.

      Cell phones are already only assigned ad-hoc IP addresses by the cell networks anyway.

    12. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by shitzu · · Score: 1

      I usually ssh to my phone while its on a wifi. The need to ssh to it over the cell network has not come up.

    13. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by DragoonAK · · Score: 1

      Actually, T-Mobile is testing this for those of us with Nokia phones that support IPv6, and they're using NAT64 to give access to IPv4 content.

      See http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta

      I'm currently using this on my Nokia N900, and it works for most things - the IPv6 support on the N900 is a bit of a hack, and some protocols embed IPv4 addresses (MSN IMs I think).

    14. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about your cell phone provider, but mine doesn't issue public IPv4 addresses to individual phones. They use NAT and squeeze all the phones into into a tiny collection of public IPv4 addresses. I doubt there are many IPv4 addresses to free up here.

    15. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they don't.

      $ host www.google.com
      www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
      www.l.google.com has address 173.194.32.104

      $ host maps.google.com
      maps.google.com is an alias for maps.l.google.com.
      maps.l.google.com has address 173.194.32.104

      $ host www.gmail.com
      www.gmail.com is an alias for mail.google.com.
      mail.google.com is an alias for googlemail.l.google.com.
      googlemail.l.google.com has address 173.194.32.83

      $ host www.v6.facebook.com
      www.v6.facebook.com has IPv6 address 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3

      $ host www.facebook.com
      www.facebook.com has address 66.220.149.32

      Seems it's fucking broken if I have to prefix some v6 or whatever major subdomain they invent in front of a known domain to get IPv6! It should work transparently! For example,

      $ host he.com
      he.com has address 216.218.186.2
      he.com has IPv6 address 2001:470:0:76::2

      Why can't the rest of the internet that support IPv6 actually support it, instead of saying they do yet they don't? IPv6 means I type GOOGLE.COM and I get both IPv4 *and* IPv6, like he.com. Not this v6.google.com bullshit.

    16. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you can't get on slashdot

      --
      I am trolling
    17. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Matt_R · · Score: 1

      Actually, they don't.

      Actually, they do.
      You just have to register your DNS server with Google.

      http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/

    18. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that mobile telecoms NATed mobiles. Most people wouldn't noticed since they don't even know what their IP address is, but I do know that mine (Virgin) does.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    19. Re:Start with the cell phone industry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to query google's DNS servers from an IPv6 address.

      Because there are some real world issues getting in the way of stuff.

      Not every company is gonna be as smart as Google, so go figure :).

  13. Coincidently by AfroTrance · · Score: 1

    Yesterday I was cleaning out my cupboard filled with old computer crap and found 16 million IPs. They are on a 5 1/4" floppy. Should I just mail it to ARIN?

    1. Re:Coincidently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You have a 64 meg floppy disc? forget ARIN, sell it to a floppy disc manufacturer... Doh, two decades too late.

    2. Re:Coincidently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably they were compressed.

    3. Re:Coincidently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obviously a *solid state* floppy :P

    4. Re:Coincidently by tzot · · Score: 1

      An old email with the text "Congratulations! Your email address just won the 127.0.0.0/8 address space in a lottery draw, please come collect" does not take that many bytes to store...

      --
      I speak England very best
  14. Not necessiarly by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Internet addresses are more leased than sold. The agencies in control let you use them, they don't give you a deed you get to keep forever. As a practical matter they belong to you because they don't want to cause trouble, but if push comes to shove, addresses can be taken back without compensation.

    That may be part of the thought with this. Not only is it altruistic and makes you look good but they may be worried it becomes mandatory later. They worry maybe IANA says "Guess what? We are taking back that block, you've got 1 month to renumber," and it is a big hurry, rather than just doing it and then being in the clear.

    1. Re:Not necessiarly by Drew+M. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why aren't the leases on internet addresses high enough to convince people to give them back? Price them at a buck a month, and if someone truly can afford to spend $16m a month on a class A, let them. Otherwise they will give them back really fast. What's wrong with a little capitalism?

    2. Re:Not necessiarly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called ROUTING!! You can't assign individual numbers to individual nodes willy-nilly. They need to be routable via a global routing table. The more fragmented this becomes, the more load on the routers, the less possible throughput.

      It's not fucking rocket science here!

    3. Re:Not necessiarly by ekhben · · Score: 1

      Because the registries are driven by bottom-up policy processes in which all the stakeholders who care to get involved have a hand in determining the right way to distribute addresses. Current thinking is that addresses are a global public good, and should be distributed based on responsible and efficient need, not based on depth of pocket.

    4. Re:Not necessiarly by Marcx77 · · Score: 1

      They worry maybe IANA says "Guess what?

      You are not a.... scholar of English grammar?

    5. Re:Not necessiarly by yoshac · · Score: 1
      ARIN charges $100 per year, but the fee can be waived if you return old unused blocks:

      " ARIN charges a $100 USD annual fee for coverage of legacy resources under the terms of the Legacy Registration Services Agreement (Legacy RSA). Org IDs already paying annual ISP or end user fees do not pay an additional fee to receive Legacy RSA coverage. There is no initial registration fee for legacy applicants, unless a transfer is required. The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board of Trustees may choose to raise the fee. This fee will be waived until 2013 if the legacy applicant returns at least one-fourth of the number resources covered by the Legacy RSA. ARIN will accept the return of any IPv4 address block /24 or larger. ARIN will send an invoice for the annual fee approximately 60 days before the fee is due."

      So if Nortel etc. stops paying their bill, will their class-A be returned to the free pool automatically?

    6. Re:Not necessiarly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you really don't see the flaw in you reasoning do you :(

    7. Re:Not necessiarly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The address blocks where this matters at all, i.e. the few early "class A" networks, were not leased or sold. They were basically assigned among peers. They are classified as "legacy" address space and they are not subject to the same rules as later assignments. There is very little anyone can do if these early adopters don't return addresses voluntarily. Later assignments on the other hand aren't big enough to extend availability of IPv4 address space by any meaningful duration (and it could be argued that the one month more or less that a /8 buys isn't worth the hassle either).

  15. Probably awhile by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you don't understand the rather complex issues in converting everything over to IPv6, you might want to look in to it. On every level there are issues that have to be addressed. Some of them just cost money, some of them take work, etc.

    So a simple example, but a big issue, is that of high end routers. They don't do routing in software, it isn't like they have a general purpose CPU that handles all the routing. They have one, but it is limited in power and is just for control. The routing itself is handled by ASICs. That is for speed reasons, only way to get data around that fast. Like all ASICs they do only what they were designed for. Ok well that means you have have a bigass router that can't handle IPv6. Sure technically you can upgrade the software and turn it on, but that hits the CPU. If anything more than a small amount of flows starts happening, the router crashes. You have to get a new router, that can do IPv6. Fine and well, but that costs a lot of money. These can be 7-8 figure devices. You don't just run out and buy all new ones all the time.

    There are also software issues. Not everything handles IPv6 well. A major stalling point is Windows XP. It can have IPv6 added to it, but it doesn't support it by default. No problem on Vista and 7, but there's still a good amount of XP systems floating about. That'll change with time, but right now if ISPs just go IPv6 and fuck over their XP customers, well people get mad.

    IPv6 is just going to be a gradual thing. Slowly more and more things will support it, it'll be enabled in more and more places. There isn't going to be a "We stop using IPv4 now and switch to IPv6 now," day, it'll just be a case that IPv6 will get rolled out everywhere. As that happens, you'll start to see IPV6 only services, or cheaper IPv6 services. Your ISP may offer you as many IPv6 addresses as you'd like to have for no cost, or IPv4 addresses at $10/month. Cheaper shared webhosts may do dedicated IPv6 addresses per site, but only one IPv4 address per server. As time goes on, people will probably stop bothering with the IPv4 stuff. New OSes may ship with it turned off by default, and eventually without it at all.

    It will take time though. That is the only way it'll happen. Only in the fantasy world of geeks can it just be a switch that gets flipped tomorrow and everyone changes over.

    1. Re:Probably awhile by GIL_Dude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the smaller scale (home) end of that router thing - even my recently purchased Linksys wireless access point / router doesn't do IPv6. I needed (wanted) a dual radio model so I could segregate my 802.11n devices onto 5 GHz from the 802.11g only devices (which I left on 2.4 GHz). Doing so gets better throughput for the n devices. But I was unable to find an affordable model which both had two radios AND supported IPv6. I imagine I'll have to be upgrading this device way before it is well used just to get the IPv6 support. You'd think devices you buy now would all support IPv6 out of the box - but you do still have to be careful and check into it first.

    2. Re:Probably awhile by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > There isn't going to be a "We stop using IPv4 now and switch to IPv6 now,"

      And that EXACTLY is the fucking problem.

      Numerous countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic) can, _gasp_, educate people to switch from driving from the left hand side to the right hand side so that there are minimal migration problems, but yet everyone is too fucking lazy to coordinate the inevitable from IPV4 to IPV6.

      Set a date. Educate consumers. And DO IT already, say ~ Aug 2014, when WinXP stops receiving security updates.

      This isn't just going to magically happy when people get around to it...

    3. Re:Probably awhile by Alrescha · · Score: 1

      In what (fantasy?) world of yours is this a new issue where someone expects to 'flip the switch tomorrow'?

      Who in their right mind has been buying new IPv4-only gear in the past few years? All of my day-to-day machines, including my router, are waiting for my ISP to say "we're ready for IPv6". Aren't yours?

      A.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    4. Re:Probably awhile by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Mine personally? No, my wireless router is IPv4 only. Didn't check when I bought it. My reciever is IPv4 only. Not a real big deal, it doesn't have to be on the network, but there you go. Got it just a year ago, but IPv6 wasn't an option. My Blu-ray player is also IPv4 only. That one is on the net, and gets used a lot. Maybe it could be changed, it does get firmware updates regularly, but I don't know if they can change that. My cable modem I don't know though the cable company actually owns it.

      At work? Mostly. Our university spent 8 figures not long ago to upgrade the entire core, access, and edge of the network to IPv6 capable hardware. Was very expensive. Please remember when you are talking enterprise hardware you don't replace it every year, it stays in place. These were Cisco 6500s that were 8ish years old. Had to get new supervisor modules for all of them, which cost a lot. Some other routers just had to be replaced outright. I think it is all IPv6, we route it, but who knows? Some of it may have been missed.

      However the level I was talking about was ISPs. These massive things. An ISP may have some older Juniper routers that are great at IPv4, but would need expensive upgrades, or perhaps even total replacements, to do IPv6. This isn't to mention management and monitoring software, firewalls, and so on. All of it may need upgrading or replacing to support IPv6 and none of it is at all cheap.

      That would be why your ISP does not do IPv6. It isn't being malicious, it is a matter of money.

    5. Re:Probably awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...ever looked at those v3 iphones? Yep - no ipv6 support

    6. Re:Probably awhile by mcneely.mike · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, this is my fantasy world... bring on the IPv6 stuff .................. and the girls. Lots of girls that speak geek.

      Bring it. BRING IT NOW!!

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    7. Re:Probably awhile by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 2, Insightful

      its more than just people, its businesses, and you frankly arent understanding just how big those cogs are. there are also "unknown unknowns" here. even on a small scale (under 1000 users, say) an IP migration can be a *very* complicated and especially when you get to the level of 2nd or 3rd tier providers the amount of preparation that needs to be done just to THINK about what would be required to PLAN such a move is staggering. this doesnt even get into the application layer. most applications dont currently support IPv6 and many corporations dont upgrade main line of business applications regularly. some of the companies i work with use software that is from the mid 90's and a few have stuff thats copyright 1988. For many of these businesses the cost of upgrading the hardware and/or software is prohibitive. But cost is a whole other can of worms, you try convincing a small business owner or CFO or CEO that they need to spend money they dont have on something they know they need but isnt killing them now. beyond that theres yet other issues as well.

      i'm not saying you're wrong, people DO need more education on the matter and we do need to start making these changes ASAP but the going is not as easy as "RTFA and make a change"

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    8. Re:Probably awhile by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's well understood, but over the last TEN YEARS it should have been possible to get all of the needed hardware within the normal depreciation cycle. Nobody can legitimately claim to have been blindsided by this. The projected exhaustion date hasn't actually changed all that much over that decade or so. If they're just now looking at upgrading, they will pay the significant cost of ignoring small problems until they become big problems.

      But yeah, now that they've ignored the inevitable for the last 10 years it's going to take a lot more than just flipping a switch to get v6 going.

    9. Re:Probably awhile by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Who in their right mind has been buying new IPv4-only gear in the past few years? All of my day-to-day machines, including my router, are waiting for my ISP to say "we're ready for IPv6". Aren't yours?

      No, I haven't been able to find:

      • DSL bridging modem that supports IPv6
      • Cable modem that supports IPv6
      • Load balancing router that supports IPv6
      • 5 GHz a/n access point that supports IPv6

      In fact, all I've been able to find that aren't PCs/servers, are tremendously expensive Cisco business class routers and homebrew linux running on certain Linksys devices.

    10. Re:Probably awhile by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Funny

      These can be 7-8 figure devices. You don't just run out and buy all new ones all the time.

      If only we had known about IPv6 ahead of time! Why did they spring it on us nowwwww!!!!

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    11. Re:Probably awhile by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Theres also the issue that many Vista and 7 installations have IPv6 turned off, because it can cause bizarre issues (ie, it tries to reach a domain controller via an IPv6 AAAA record, except the server doesnt have one. Whoops!).

    12. Re:Probably awhile by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Oh yes we should co-ordinate everything around Microsoft's time. No offense but why that date? Why should we have to wait till 2014 when people have been predicting for a long time that we're going to run out of IPv4 addresses by the middle of next year?

    13. Re:Probably awhile by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      DSL bridging modem that supports IPv6

      If you're just bridging, then it doesn't need to support IPV6.

    14. Re:Probably awhile by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      The Linksys E3000 supports IPv6 with simultaneous 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz. I'm lazy to find the rest for you but it's obvious that you haven't looked hard enough,

    15. Re:Probably awhile by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well I can't speak for businesses old dude (wow, a four digit ID, I thought you guys were all dead? I keed) I CAN speak for the home users which is what I primarily get my pay from, and the simple fact is there really aren't any friendly IPV6 routers at anywhere near a reasonable price point. As it is now you can get a $30 IPV4 router that is set up FOR home users, simple for them to operate, made for things like streaming media, etc, or you can buy a $100+ SMB router that does NOT have the home features, isn't really made for them, and is overall a bigger PITA with less features that they want/need and more features that they don't.

      So you can blame the manufacturers for the trainloads of eWaste we are gonna have if we don't have a mandatory 6to4 converter built into every home cable and DSL modem in the country. Also ALL of those modems are gonna have to be shitcanned, as I just got a new Motorola from my ISP two months ago and guess what? As far as I can tell there is NO IPV6 support even on the newer ones. Then of course you are gonna have to figure in huge chunks of the network failing. Why do you ask? Simple. All that network and backbone in the "flyover" states? Guess who runs that? Good old boys that cut their teeth on Unix and DOS and don't know jack about troubleshooting IPV6. Thanks to all the outsourcing young blood just isn't going into the boring IT jobs anymore, and many of the old guys running things now will either have to start from scratch or retire, and I wouldn't be surprised if many just choose the latter than deal with the BS.

      so either way it is gonna be a fucking mess. They SHOULD have been teaching IPV6 in every Vo Tech and CS class for a decade now, but that just wasn't done, now you have older and older workers doing more and more with less and less and IPV6 is gonna be a BIG change. Thing that would have taken minutes to fix in IPV4 are gonna takes days simply because the experience isn't there. Believe me man, when it comes it WILL be a clusterfuck, mark my words.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Probably awhile by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      He said in his post, that's when XP stops getting support. Since XP is the biggest OS that doesn't do IPv6, telling people to fuck off and get a new computer the same time their OS stops getting support seems okay.

      Well, except for your point about running out of addresses well before then. That might be an issue...

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    17. Re:Probably awhile by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Informative

      XP does support IPv6 and you can do IPv4 to 6 proxy conversation.

    18. Re:Probably awhile by machine321 · · Score: 1

      I have an old Netgear WNDR3300; I haven't tested it yet, but I recently installed DD-WRT on it, which supports IPv6. It's a dual-radio ABGN router. I think I paid $30 a year and a half ago and it got lost in a closet so I never set it up.

    19. Re:Probably awhile by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > A major stalling point is Windows XP. It can have IPv6 added to
      > it, but it doesn't support it by default. No problem on Vista and
      > 7, but there's still a good amount of XP systems floating about.

      If you were Steve Ballmer, or even an ordinary Microsoft shareholder, you'd absolutely *LOVE* IPV6 to come along and obsolete XP. Think of the millions of people who would have to buy new computers == more "Windows Tax" royalties for MS.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    20. Re:Probably awhile by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      I CAN speak for the home users which is what I primarily get my pay from, and the simple fact is there really aren't any friendly IPV6 routers at anywhere near a reasonable price point. As it is now you can get a $30 IPV4 router that is set up FOR home users, simple for them to operate, made for things like streaming media, etc, or you can buy a $100+ SMB router that does NOT have the home features, isn't really made for them, and is overall a bigger PITA with less features that they want/need and more features that they don't.

      Or, you could buy an Apple Airport Extreme, which features built-in disk and printer sharing, dual radios, and full IPv6 support, and is made for very easy configuration by any Mac or Windows home user.

      No, it's not a $30 device, but you obviously didn't do your research. The Airport Extreme is made for the people you specify, and does feature full IPv6 support. It will even setup a 6to4 tunnel for you if you don't have native IPv6 support from your ISP, and then provide autoconf data to any IPv6 enabled client that connects to it. No NAT, no punching holes for ports -- just plug and play IPv6.

      Yaz.

    21. Re:Probably awhile by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the ISP started selling/giving away DSL/Cable Modem Routers that were capable of IPv6 then a lot of the issues with XP etc would go away. LEt the router/modem handle IPv6 on one side and give you a local Nat'd IPv4 on the other and optionally a parallel IPv6 net. Then the ISP's could return the now unused IPv4 addresses to the pool. The issue with this is that many of the currently available devices won't do that job OOTB.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    22. Re:Probably awhile by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Why is because Microsoft is still 80+% of the market. No matter the progress of Mac OSX (with its poor implementation of IPv6 until 10.6), Linux or the server OS market, Windows still dominates and without Microsoft's co-operation any attempt to throw the switch to IPv6 is futile and far more liable to cause customer grief.

      Not defending Microsoft or their position, but it's a reality that we have to deal with. Legacy exists and cannot be dismissed as a trivial part of the market.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    23. Re:Probably awhile by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Even the Apple Airport Extreme does 5 GHz, IPv6, and 6to4. Basic research.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    24. Re:Probably awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh?

      At eight years old, even a 6500-series is at or near its end of life anyway. Basically, the only vendor that's still selling kit with a lifecycle longer than that is IBM. And be prepared to pat through the nose if you go to them for big iron. I don't think they do routers anyway. Though if you were daft enough to ask them, I'm sure they'd be willing to knock something up for you; and charge vast amounts of money for doing so.

      For any vendor besides Big Blue, at eight years you should already be prepared and budgeted for replacement kit anyway. So what's the big deal?

    25. Re:Probably awhile by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ASICs and the entire routers for that matter in the usual suspects (Cisco, Juniper & Co) have had stable IPv6 support for more than 7-8 years now.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    26. Re:Probably awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wow... Have you heard of the D-Link DIR-825? As long as you get hardware revision B1, you can flash OpenWRT onto it. Of course, you should probably compile it yourself, so that you can change the regulatory domain to something other than the intersection of US and EU regulations... I got some here, and on eBay, if you get them from Korea, you can get one for USD100 or so.

      And yes, it supports IPv6 :)

      Cheers,

      Michael

    27. Re:Probably awhile by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Problems with your solution: Too expensive, average price $100+ just as I said, too many features like printer and disc sharing that a good 99% of home user do NOT need, again just as I said, and if it is like the rest of the Apple stuff I've messed with it REALLY kicks ass on Macs, and frankly is half ass on windows, ala iTunes and Quicktime. Now why would my customers, who frankly are average working folks who are hurting thanks to the lovely mess the rich banking bastards got us into, pay over THREE times the price for features they'll NEVER need, when they can just buy a $30 Linksys that will do ALL that they currently need, and when IPV6 finally rolls around (which may be years and may have tons of changes, ala N draft VS N spec) just shitcan it for another $30 that by then will support IPV6?

      So as you can see I DID do my homework, it is simply as I told you. The routers out there that support IPV6 are too expensive, offer features my users neither want nor need (Windows printer sharing works fine and the family desktop is usually on 24/7 anyway) just so they can have a device that may or may not be supported or conform to the spec when it finally gets rolled out? From the way things are looking it may be 5 years or more before we in the flyover states get IPV6, and we know Apple don't support stuff that long. It is just like what I told the customer who was thinking about a toughbook because he is a little clumsy: He can spend $2400+ on a laptop that will last him awhile, or he can spend $300 on a netbook with an SD card making constant backups and simply replace it if he fucks it up, and at that price he could have three spares and still come out way ahead. I mean sure, if you have the money a MBA or toughbook is cool, most don't have it.

      The difference between an Airport Extreme and a Linksys is simply not justified when the users have no use for the features it offers. Yeah it sucks for the environment, blame the race to the bottom and manufacturers not bothering to support IPV6. It is my job to show my customers the choices and let THEM decide. I have shown them the AE router in the past alongside the Linksys and explained the features/benefits of both, and I'm afraid I just haven't had a customer choose the higher priced option. in this economy price trumps all, sorry. Well except for the one Mac guy I know, but he makes 6 figures and has a new MBP every time they have a refresh. Man that must be nice, us poor working slobs gotta use our 3 year old Dell laptops.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    28. Re:Probably awhile by wadeal · · Score: 1

      Why does your home PC need to even support IPv6? Just have IPv6 for the WAN interface on your router/modem and IPv4 on your internal network. Is there some problem with doing this I don't see?

    29. Re:Probably awhile by julesh · · Score: 1

      So a simple example, but a big issue, is that of high end routers. They don't do routing in software, it isn't like they have a general purpose CPU that handles all the routing. They have one, but it is limited in power and is just for control. The routing itself is handled by ASICs. That is for speed reasons, only way to get data around that fast. Like all ASICs they do only what they were designed for. Ok well that means you have have a bigass router that can't handle IPv6. Sure technically you can upgrade the software and turn it on, but that hits the CPU. If anything more than a small amount of flows starts happening, the router crashes. You have to get a new router, that can do IPv6. Fine and well, but that costs a lot of money. These can be 7-8 figure devices. You don't just run out and buy all new ones all the time.

      Well, that's true enough, but there have been reasonably accurate estimates of the date on which we'll run out of IPv4 addresses for over 5 years now, and prior to that most estimates were on the earlier rather than later side, so if the people buying these routers had performed rudimentary due diligence they should have either:

      1. seen that IPv6 compatibility will be necessary within the device's lifespan and acquired one that can do this -- for instance, most of Cisco's models have had the capability for nearly ten years now -- or,
      2. been aware that they were installing devices with a limited lifespan and budgeted for their replacement some time around now.

      There are also software issues. Not everything handles IPv6 well. A major stalling point is Windows XP. It can have IPv6 added to it, but it doesn't support it by default.

      I'm not convinced it would need to. I'd guess something like 99.9% of Windows XP installations are behind NAT routers; these routers could be reconfigured or replaced with ones that use an IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnel to handle this traffic.

    30. Re:Probably awhile by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      XP can do IPv6. It can't do DNS over IPv6 (but that needs v4 connectivity just to the next router), and you need two sockets instead of one to listen. Neither of these is a blocking issue.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    31. Re:Probably awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home routers DO use their CPU to do the routing, so it's just a matter of firmware updates.
      Or OpenWRT, for that matter.

    32. Re:Probably awhile by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Apple Airport. With all the disclaimers about being an Apple product and not being able to configure it through HTTP or SSH. Still, Apple seems to be the only consumer CPE vendor who is actively participating in the development of the various IPv6 CPE RFC's. (How is that for acronym soup?)

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    33. Re:Probably awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All we need is that youtube and facebook go IPv6 only. Then watch everyone pull out all stops and switch to IPv6 so fast your head would spin.

    34. Re:Probably awhile by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      but there's still a good amount of XP systems floating about.

      They're not just "still floating about", they're still sold as new. See this ASUS Eee Box, a very small form factor desktop PC. Comes with Windows XP Home Edition.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    35. Re:Probably awhile by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      may be years and may have tons of changes, ala N draft VS N spec

      The IPv6 spec was actually published in 1998.

      Thought most of us (ie those of us who are in a business with its own IPv4 address, or who's ISP already has addresses) probably will get on fine without IPv6 for a few more years, so I suppose it's the new guys who can't get online without it that are going to be driving IPv6. As more and more people are v6 only, then others online will have to get compatible to be able to communicate with them.

      I'm not fussed about upgrading yet, though currently I'm only renting anyway, so any upgrades to an IPv6 capable router are up to my flatmate, and of course our ISP; there's really no point buying a v6 capable router if they don't support it and we'd probably be buying a new router in a couple of years anyway.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    36. Re:Probably awhile by arth1 · · Score: 1

      True enough. I should have said "that supports IPv6 (for QoS)".

    37. Re:Probably awhile by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for the need for IPv6, his 8 year old gear would be still working. Sure, if it breaks, or need to upgrade capacity, replace it with new IPv6 gear, but if it's not broke, replacing it mostly unnecessary.

    38. Re:Probably awhile by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The Linksys E3000 supports IPv6 with simultaneous 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz

      But it doesn't support IPv6 unless you install WRT-DD.
      (WRT-DD was what I hinted at by "homebrew linux running on certain Linksys devices").

      It also is a router and doesn't work as a pure access point unless you install WRT-DD.

      I'm lazy to find the rest for you but it's obvious that you haven't looked hard enough,

      It's obvious that you haven't looked hard enough if you think that the Linksys E3000 is marketed as an access point with IPv6 support.

    39. Re:Probably awhile by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r24474010-Security-E3000-passes-iOS4-IPv6

      I installed an E3000 yesterday and this morning tried an IPv6 test at one of many such sites on the web and discovered that my iOS4/3Gs iPhone had an IPv6 address.

      It appears that E3000 has an IPv6 capability. Comcast appears to be doing a 6to4 translation along the way.

      I don't find any way mention of a IPv6 capability on the E3000 especially anyway to control a firewall on it.

      It supports IPv6. You need to fucking google more before you post a reply.. in fact just any comment at all.

    40. Re:Probably awhile by desertfool · · Score: 1

      At my place of employment (large multinational company) I have been trying to get our PHB's to even realize that we need to start working on this. I've been trying for a year, and haven't gotten anywhere. It isn't sexy, it won't save money, and it won't help the executives use their iphone in an airport, so there are no resources.

      At some point int he near future we'll need to connect with someone or something that is IPv6 only, and I'll have to explain why we didn't do something earlier. Can't win for losing.

      --
      Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
    41. Re:Probably awhile by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yea, and you have to ignore the fact that those high end devices have been IPv6 ready for several years now.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    42. Re:Probably awhile by arth1 · · Score: 1

      "Passes IPv6" doesn't mean "supports IPv6". Any old access point will pass IPv6 traffic.

      In fact, I'm talking from my laptop to my server with IPv6 over an IPv4 access point, but that doesn't make the access point support IPv6.
      I still need IPv4 to talk to the access point, and it doesn't filter on IPv6 addresses, doesn't look up AAAA records, doesn't obtain an address from my DHCP6 server, or any of the other stuff that's needed for it to work with, you know, IPv6.

      Where in the E3000 configuration (web or client) do you set up IPv6? Or how do you access it on an IPv6-only network, for that matter?\
      Answer to both: You can't.

      You need to fucking google more before you post a reply..

      This is the pot calling the kettle black. Two minutes of Google would have shown you that it does, in fact, NOT support IPv6.

    43. Re:Probably awhile by sjames · · Score: 1

      I had to reflash my WRT54GL to get it to d0 6to4 for me. The consumer side is fairly lame right now. The majority of the consumer devices are capable of a flash upgrade but I'm guessing most of the vendors will prefer to force people to buy more hardware and won't release the update. Here's hoping they prove me wrong. Much of that is driven by customers not knowing they should be demanding IPv6 capability.

      The same shouldn't apply to the big expensive routers. Those customers certainly should have known. Notably, the DOD has been demanding v6 support for a while now, probably trying to drive the vendors in the right direction.

    44. Re:Probably awhile by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      And... That is the essence of the problem.

      Affordability.

      I have a more expensive Linksys dual-N router that supports IPv6. But I paid extra because it had such features. As long as J. Random Consumer can go to the store and save $20 by declining IPv6, he's going to do it - and the sales people at the store are going to encourage that, because they want their sales commission and customer satisfaction ratings.

  16. ARIN, you aren't fooling anyone by Dogun · · Score: 1

    Number Authorities:

    Once you run out of IP allocations to hand out (which you have done at an incredible pace), you have two solutions:

    A) Force everyone onto IPv6 before they are ready
    B) Acknowledge that there is significant underutilisation of existing resources, and that supply/demand are going to encourage the rise of secondary markets.

  17. Re:IPs! OM NOM NOM NOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    IPs are a sometimes food...

  18. Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This move just gives people more reason to procrastinate.

    They should have waited until the pool ran out and bad stuff started happening. Then once everyone realizes what needs to be done and gets to work, return the addresses.

  19. We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 in by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 inside to make it easier to move over and less the cost of having to buy new printers, wifi AP's, home media stuff , and more.

    Do you real want a printer to have a global IP? do you want buy a newer printer / copiers just for IPv6? the high end ones cost alot.

  20. Wasn't set up that way by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Remember back when all this was set up the Internet was a toy for academic institutions and so on. The idea of 4 billion computers in the world was unthinkable. So they handed shit out real cheap. One time cost kind of thing, and the big orgs that got on first got 16 million. Nobody thought this was a problem, nobody needed it. The whole reason for a Class A was just to let you subnet up your network to a high degree easily.

    Maybe they will start charging or doing something else to put the pressure on but I bet not. You might notice that the "OMG IPv4 is runs outs!!!111" story hits Slashdot a lot, and has been for like a decade. Not only are we coming up with new creative ways to deal with it (classless routing, NAT, etc) but it just isn't as big a deal as it is made out to be. It isn't a thing of we run out and suddenly nobody new can get on the Internet, it is that there are no new assignments to give out, so people will have to make do with what is out there. That can mean more NAT, renumbering, all sorts of shit like that.

    For example the university I work at has a private internally routed IP space. It is one of the reserved, "non-routable" spaces like what you see behind a NAT. However internal to campus, it is routed normally. So you can put printers and shit like that on it. Keeps down the usage of public IPs, but computers on campus can talk to those IPs as normal.

    Also IPv6 is slowly growing. A big step was with Windows Vista. Windows is still the most used OS, and is likely to stay that way. Windows Vista ships with extremely good IPv6 support and it is turned on by default. Same with Windows 7, of course, Means more and more end users have IPv6 support on their systems. That means a switch over is much easier. Heck you might not even know it. On our domain all the IPv6 enabled systems automatically register their AAAA record as well as their A record. When you request another computer, you don't even know which one is being used to talk to it.

    IANA may not have to do anything in the end. IPv6 may slowly rise as IPv4 fades away and there may never be any real problems do to an IPv4 shortage.

    1. Re:Wasn't set up that way by boombaard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Extremely good is a bit of an overstatement:

      After the University Of Hawaii began getting Google Over IPv6 in March of 2010, we began noticing problems with user devices on our wireless sending router advertisements and “black-holing” traffic. This problem is, of course made more apparent by initiating Google Over IPv6, which causes significantly more content to be requested by clients over IPv6. Despite first appearances, this is a good thing, since it is a problem that must be faced and dealt with in order to operate a IPv6 network for the near term.
      In a nutshell, a “rogue RA” scenario occurs when some device besides an “official” router identifies itself as a router using “router advertisement” ICMP6 messages. Once client hosts see the “rogue” as a router, they may prefer it as their next hop to send traffic out to the Internet.
      This can result in one of two problems:

      • the rogue router can use its position as a router to intercept and eavesdrop upon or otherwise mess with traffic
      • the rogue router can neglect to forward traffic such that the client cannot reach things by IPv6

      These issues are not IPv6 specific problems. There are numerous similar problems that occur in IPv4 networks, on 802.11 “WiFi” networks, and on Layer 2 switched wired networks.
      The best-known cause of rogue RAs on an IPv6 network comes from Windows Vista hosts with Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) enabled. Other causes are probably common, since the “personalities” of rogue RAs seem to differ widely.

      And there also appears to be a problem with enabled 6to4 tunnels advertising to the network that they are willing to act as virtual gateways.. Not exactly my idea of 'extremely good'

  21. If by "they" you mean the greedy... by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...I agree completely. Why *does* MIT need a contiguous 16 million addresses, plus more than a dozen more class B spaces (each 65,000+ addresses, for a total of more than a million addresses, not including their class A space.)

    The answer is: they DON'T. Nor does Halliburton, Eli Lilly, Prudential Insurance (!!!), or Ford. In fact, they've done a great job of proving they don't, by running out and securing a number of class B address spaces in other class A/B octets when they should have just given out subnets of their existing Class A.

    Even HP, Apple, and IBM are standing on shaky ground; they're international corporations whose primary business is at least somewhat internet related, but they still don't need 16 million addresses in one space.

    1. Re:If by "they" you mean the greedy... by pehrs · · Score: 1

      Historical reasons mostly. Migrating to a new IP plan is far from trivial in a large scale network. The amount of work they would have to do to return that /8 is in no way proportional to the "gain" of delaying forced IPv6 introduction by a few weeks. It's easy to blame the early adopters for getting large amounts of IP addresses assigned, but when you look at it from a historical perspective it does make sense. Early adopters of internet technologies were assigned a large amount of resources, simplifying the deployment before there were good technologies to deal with the issues.

      By the way, Class A/B/C networks is a historical term and makes no sense since we introduced CLIDR in 1993, taking away their magic status. It just confuses people now.

    2. Re:If by "they" you mean the greedy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, Class A/B/C networks is a historical term and makes no sense since we introduced CLIDR in 1993, taking away their magic status. It just confuses people now.

      To be honest, the IP address assignments in question dates even before that!

    3. Re:If by "they" you mean the greedy... by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Is there some documented way where ARIN can approach these companies and request that they reevaluate their resource needs? Perhaps an audit process?

    4. Re:If by "they" you mean the greedy... by yorugua · · Score: 1
      > Even HP, Apple, and IBM are standing on shaky ground; they're international corporations whose primary business is at least somewhat internet related, but they still don't need 16 million addresses in one space

      Well, IBM and I suspect HP (don't know about Apple) have an Intranet that goes all over the world. Each thing on the network needs a valid IP address on that network (is not like they NAT an entire country/division), every printer, every phone, every wifi cell phone (so you have IM, VoIP and email), every router, every server, every laptop, every desktop. I work on one of these international networks, and one of the limitations on some of them is that sometimes you just don't get your ip address because they ran out, you better wake up early. We are about 10.000 employees just in the city I work in).

  22. There by Masterofpsi · · Score: 1

    Thus solving the problem once and for all!

  23. Back in April I did the same thing ... by hedronist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Admittedly it was only a /24 (called a C-net by us geezers), but I had had it since about 1992. That was back in the days you could get a C-net for the asking, and a B-net (a /16 to you youngsters) could be had without too much whining.

    I got a nice note back from ARIN saying:

    As the popular quote says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. 199.201.131.0/24 has been returned to the pool of available addresses - thanks!

    1. Re:Back in April I did the same thing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those were the days, i had a /24 on my early dedicated and isdn in 1994

  24. Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have ONE static IP from Comcast Business. This is great; I don't really need more than one, right? Well the problem is they've given me a routed subnet. So for me to get my one IP, they also have to waste these additional IPs:

    1. The IP on the WAN side of the router, provided to it by DHCP.
    2. Internal network subnet address.
    3. The router's internal network address.
    4. Internal network broadcast address.

    Yes, that means for my ONE static IP, Comcast is wasting four more. I can't help wondering why they built their network this way, rather than simply assigning me the WAN side IP and making sure it doesn't change. But hey, that's Comcast for you.

    Who knows how many millions of IPs are wasted through inefficient allocation this way. If I have a block of six IPs it would make administrative sense to do it this way but for one? Come on. :)

    1. Re:Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your a more on

    2. Re:Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. by Lanboy · · Score: 1

      Well, some devices have support for a /31 subnet, that helps a bit. But the problem is usually that the way the cable head end infrasructure works, you are on a shared network, and they roll out a subnet for static ip addresses keyed to mac addresses. So if you are the only static subnet user in the neightborhood, then some addresses are wasted.

    3. Re:Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If that is really how they have you set up, you can probably use all four addresses for servers without waste. I am no networking expert -- though I'm sure one will post a reply to ream me for this -- but I have exploited a non-standard config to squeeze eight addresses from my company's "five IP" routed account (this is a non-critical internet connection that they allow me to fuck with).

      As long as all of the /30 are routed to you by the ISP, the trick is to assign a subnet mask of 255.255.255.255 (works for Linux/OS X, no-go on Windows) to the router and all servers. The gateway address configured on the servers automatically gets a host entry in their routing tables, so the servers will know how to send packets to the router even though it is outside their subnets. You will, though, have to "route add -host" on the router for it to know how to talk back. In fact, the router's internal address can even be a private one like 10.0.0.1 so it doesn't burn up one of your available addresses.

      Assigned IP block: 200.100.0.64/30
      Router LAN address: 10.0.0.1/24 (doesn't matter)
              sudo route add -host 200.100.0.64 -interface en1
              sudo route add -host 200.100.0.65 -interface en1
              sudo route add -host 200.100.0.66 -interface en1
              sudo route add -host 200.100.0.67 -interface en1

      Server 1: 200.100.0.64/32, gateway 10.0.0.1
      Server 2: 200.100.0.65/32, gateway 10.0.0.1
      Server 3: 200.100.0.66/32, gateway 10.0.0.1
      Server 4: 200.100.0.67/32, gateway 10.0.0.1

      Alternatively, you can just fudge your /30 mask to a /28 on your router and all servers. You won't be able to talk to the 12 adjacent (legitimate) internet hosts that you just overlaid -- your servers will falsely assume that they are on your side of the router -- but it is a small price to pay for the freebies.

    4. Re:Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. by Agent+Green · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are actually reasons behind this. I've got a /29 from Charter Business myself, but this is why it is the way it is, based on my experience as a former Charter engineer.

      In the days of old, customers were assigned their statics in WAN-side way as you describe. My parents used to have a static assigned to them from a WAN block on their CMTS. This was great because whatever allocation assigned was very efficiently used. Granted, this was back when nodes were combined 4:1 or greater on the small CMTS that was being used. A uBR7246 with 1x6 cards in the day could easily route traffic for over 48 cable nodes, at 2:1 combining on the upstreams, and 12:1 on the downstreams. (A whopping 150mbps for 48 nodes ... laugable today).

      It wasn't all that long ago I remember some towns sharing a single downstream port. Now, enter node splits, and combining gets down to 1:1 in many cases. Even with a much larger CMTS (uBR10012 vs. uBR7246), it can't handle the same number of nodes. With redundancy failover switchboxes, there are only 35 downstreams per box (assuming 5x20 cards).

      Now a problem exists as soon as the box's capacity is reached. If I need to split your node and move it to another CMTS to increase your available bandwidth, I need to coordinate with everyone who is moving who has a WAN side IP and tell them that their IP address is going to change on whatever date. This turns into an incredible shitstorm when one person stammers their feet and cries up the escalation chain and then delays necessary work because they bitch. Then capacity continues to be in hell until the move is finally approved. Then, there are the customers who ignore your voicemail and phone calls and then cry for a credit because they didn't pay attention until the move date.

      So now what everyone is doing in order to make this easier is to assign you a /30 or /29 or whatever which you get from your modem. The modem sends that assignemnt up via RIP and it gets redistributed into the network. Now, it doesn't matter what town you're in or what CMTS you're on. Note splits and changes can essentially happen without you ever having to renumber your side. With the growing demands on bandwidth, it's not unheard of that you could move a couple of times per year, depending on the scope of the engineering changes.

      Seems wasteful, but that's the sense behind it.

      --
      // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
      // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    5. Re:Wasteful allocation is nearly as bad. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1
  25. by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Informative

    by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are other things like games and more that double or mass NATing can mess up.

    1. Re:by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by default WOW uses P2P for updates there are other things like games and more that double or mass NATing can mess up.

      Yay. One vote for NAT. No more filesharing. No more kids in the basement playing night and day. Civilization is saved.

  26. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is some stuff like that. That is the basic idea of 6to4. Allows IPv6 to be routed over IPv4.

    In the case of printers what you might do is use print servers. If you have new desktops that are IPv6 only, due to lack of IPv4 addresses, you have your servers run IPv6 and IPv4 and your old printers run IPv4 only. Desktops communicate to the server, server to the printers, nobody ever notices a difference.

    I suspect IPv4 will be around for a very long time, even after most things are IPv6.

  27. IPv6 NOW or death to the internet(s) by xiando · · Score: 1

    This will not help in the long run, we must all switch to IPv6 immediately or the Internet(s) is going to die. In other news, the sky is about to fall on our head. I've been (ab)using IPv6 for a decade so I can scp stuff between boxen using DNS, and absolutely nothing has changed regarding global deployment during that period - and I doubt it ever will

    1. Re:IPv6 NOW or death to the internet(s) by Lanboy · · Score: 1

      MY internet will work fine.

    2. Re:IPv6 NOW or death to the internet(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a terrorist threat? "We will commence DOS attacks against IPv4 addresses unless our demands are met!"

  28. There are more organizations that should by Technomancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    return their 16M IPv4 addresses, just look at the map
    http://xkcd.com/195/
    HP, DEC, Ford, Xerox, Bell Labs, Apple, MIT, USPS, DuPont, IBM, General Electric, Boeing, Prudential, Eli Lily, Halliburton.
    Why does plane, car, drug or chemical manufacturer or an insurance company need 16M publicly routable IP addresses?
    I guess HP has now all the DEC IPs, so they have 32M, WTF!

    1. Re:There are more organizations that should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget HP, BB&N is a research subdivision of Raytheon, and because they were involved with the early Internet, they have 3 Class A's (4, 8, and 46). 48 million addresses.

    2. Re:There are more organizations that should by Lanboy · · Score: 1

      They were handing out class As and Bs like candy back in the day. Obviously if they imagined a day where addresses would be exhausted they woul have added an octet or two to the address and we wouldn't be talking about it.

    3. Re:There are more organizations that should by glaurungn · · Score: 1

      Forget Raytheron, the US DoD has 11 Class A blocks

    4. Re:There are more organizations that should by Nelson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So if you're a large business, what's the best way to make sure any two devices on your network can easily talk to each other if they need to? Keep in mind that companies like HP and IBM buy other companies on a very regular basis and there are constant collisions with private space when that happens. What's the solution?

      The very best solution is to give all the machines unique public IPs that are routable and do your own routing inside your network. A lot more companies than those use that practice.

    5. Re:There are more organizations that should by gblues · · Score: 1

      TCP/IP is routable, period. The "non-routable" blocks are simply IP addresses that can't be used across the Internet but will still work fine in an internal network. HP's users might need to talk to each other, but there's no reason for me to able to ping all of them from home.

    6. Re:There are more organizations that should by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you totally missed the point!

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    7. Re:There are more organizations that should by initialE · · Score: 1

      You're basically just asking to buy back a year and a half of time. Doesn't make the problem really go away.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    8. Re:There are more organizations that should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, then route this:

      Company A is using 192.168.0.0/16. They merge with company B, who is using 192.168.0.0/16.

      So, how are we going to route packets from the Exchange server with 192.168.4.32 to the Lotus Notes server with 192.168.4.32?

      THAT'S why they aren't routeable.

    9. Re:There are more organizations that should by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Organisation A uses 10.x.x.x internally, and NAT.
      Organisation B uses 10.x.x.x internally, and NAT.

      University C uses 123.456.x.x internally and externally.
      Small college D uses 210.789.x.x internally and externally.

      What happens when A merges with B?
      What happens when C merges with D?

      (My old university has several IP ranges, the /24 ranges and one of the /16s are from merged medical schools.)

    10. Re:There are more organizations that should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work at Xerox and every computer in the lab where I worked had a static IP out of their pool. I can't speak for the entire company, but I assume that pretty much every computer in the company was setup that way. I was in a testing lab, so many of the computers didn't even have access to the internet, but a static "public" IP was still used to ensure that each machine had a unique IP, no matter where in the company the computer was. For Xerox to give their block back, they'd have to reassign the IP addresses for every computer in the company, which if they are going to do that, they might as well switch to IPv6.

      Some of the computers in our lab were using public IPv6 addresses, but that was more for testing the driver software rather than a large scale deployment.

    11. Re:There are more organizations that should by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      If you have to renumber the company you just bought, what you renumber it to is irrelevant. You can renumber it into 10.0.0.0/8 just as easy as any other /8.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    12. Re:There are more organizations that should by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      You've just described how the Internet was SUPPOSED to work and further how it COULD work if we migrate to IPv6!

    13. Re:There are more organizations that should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is to use 10/8 internally, and have an internal organization to assign IPs from that block (which would be the same organization that assigns from their current, public block).

  29. ip v4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered why nat was not built in.
    For example lets say ip address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/192.168.1.102 and its ignored by the routers until the last hop then the XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX is ignored and the internal address is all that's read.

    Just seems easier than a whole new address scheme.

    My two cents.

    1. Re:ip v4 by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      So you've just essentially proposed a solution which is almost exactly the same as IPv6 address scheme. Why do you think that your scheme isn't going to take a complete change of all equipment? because it uses a numbering system similar to IPv4?

    2. Re:ip v4 by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Depending on how it's done, such as putting the private address after the IP header, it would be possible to only require the machines/routers at each end of the connection to understand this new form of NAT, with a fallback to today's NAT. All the routers on the route wouldn't need to understand the extension.

      --
      SSC
    3. Re:ip v4 by ross+axe · · Score: 1

      I think you just reinvented 6to4

    4. Re:ip v4 by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Not quite; 6to4 requires more than this scheme. 6to4 sticks the whole ipv6 packet inside an ipv4 one and requires a relay router to reach native ipv6 hosts. Furthermore, my scheme loses the other advantages of ipv6: stateless autoconfig, for example. The address space is only the square root of the ipv6 address space. I can go on.

      What it does have is compatibility with far more equipment. The updates would be simpler as well.

      --
      SSC
    5. Re:ip v4 by ross+axe · · Score: 1

      Not quite; 6to4 requires more than this scheme.

      Not much more. The IPv6 header that 6to4 inserts is mostly just address bits, which your suggestion would also require, perhaps using RFC 2004 or loose source routing. Most of the remaining 8 bytes are equivalent to fields in the v4 header. Only the (optional) flow label is unique to IPv6 (for now, see the IPv4 flowlabel draft).

      6to4 [...] requires a relay router to reach native ipv6 hosts.

      As opposed to your proposal, which offers no method to reach native v6 hosts.

      What it does have is compatibility with far more equipment.

      Which equipment? 6to4 is already 'compatible' with the routers on the public v4 internet, by virtue of hiding the v6 stuff entirely. NAT devices have to be upgraded in either scheme, as do the hosts and the applications that run on them, to accommodate the new addressing scheme. And yes, your proposal does introduce a new addressing scheme, in which hosts without public v4 addresses will require multiple v4 addresses to identify them uniquely (just how many are needed depends on how many layers of NAT it's hiding behind). Your scheme may avoid the need to upgrade any links and routers between the host and it's NAT device, but ISATAP or 6over4 can do the same for IPv6.

      The updates would be simpler as well.

      Simpler how? By introducing a variable-length addressing scheme, you actually seem to be making things more complex.

  30. Re: home (ab)use not doable? eh? by xiando · · Score: 1

    Of course, ISPs and data centers should convert to IP6 first. But come client side, I still think cell phones should be converted. A much more doable task in comparison to home use and SMB offices.

    If major ISPs deploy IPv6 then homes and SMB offices get it almost automagically these days. I use a he.net tunnel at home and radvd to share it. Everybody who connects to the lan gets a IPv6 addy. No problem. It works on GNU/Linux boxes, Windows boxes, Mac boxes, whatever. Most people visiting don't know and don't care, but it works. If your ISP gives you your pre-configured equipment and you connect to it and it hands you a IPv6 addy then 99% of end-users are all set and we're done. Actually getting ISPs to deploy is the hard part, end users are not.

  31. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My printer (a ~$100 Cannon) actually does IPv6. My current router build does not. I'm not sure about my Xbox And the Windows XP computers might present a problem.

  32. The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. by Lanboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stupid fuckers could have made the protocols interactive, but no, they had to try to be clever and redesign the whole thing, so we will need to run dual stack for 5-10 years. No bugs gonna be there. They were just pissy because no one liked OSI CLNS . Which would be just as easy to switch over to, by the way. How many addressable addresses does IPX/SPX have? Lets Dual stack that instead, just to fuck them.

    My only bitter pleasure will be watching microsoft networking melt down. Dynamic DNS? No way bitch, ip6 addresses handed out by the router. Of course they will just continue to cheat and use NetBui with a local global catolauge server, like they do now.

    1. Re:The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stupid fuckers could have made the protocols interactive, but no, they had to try to be clever and redesign the whole thing, so we will need to run dual stack for 5-10 years. No bugs gonna be there. They were just pissy because no one liked OSI CLNS . Which would be just as easy to switch over to, by the way. How many addressable addresses does IPX/SPX have? Lets Dual stack that instead, just to fuck them.

      My only bitter pleasure will be watching microsoft networking melt down. Dynamic DNS? No way bitch, ip6 addresses handed out by the router. Of course they will just continue to cheat and use NetBui with a local global catolauge server, like they do now.

      Speaking of stupid fuckers. Microsoft DDNS works just fine with IPv6 assuming you're using dhcpv6. Netbeui is defunct and has nothing to do with a GC server.

    2. Re:The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. by rdebath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because an "interactive protocol" would not work. The core idea of IP is to allow global communications using only local decisions, for any machine connected to the internet you can route any packet with just a small list of "routes" which tell you which port to send the packet and the values in the packet header itself.

      Adding some sort of negotiation phase would mean that this information would have to be saved, you have to record the fact that a successful "connection" had been made and what sort of connection it was and probably broadcast the fact that you've made a successful connection to anyone who's interested. But IP doesn't have connections ... so it wouldn't be IP any more. You'd lose the massive advantages of IP, the local decisions and the tremendous speed that this allows.

      This has been tried before, there are lots of connection oriented protocols around, they are very good for working out how much to charge people and once a connection is established you can easily do things like guaranteed bandwidth allocations. But it takes a long time to setup a connection, every node along the route has to agree to and record the connection (and possibly even talk to an authentication database to decide if the connection is allowed) which takes time, memory and other resources.

      In fact it gets so complicated and expensive that most systems end up dumbing down the nodes in the middle so they're fast and light, so they just send packets without worrying where they come from, just pointing them to the next hop on their journey ... IP gets reinvented and eventually the inner nodes actually run IP because the hardware for a given guaranteed bandwidth is cheaper; even if there's a need for "over provision".

      Quite simply, many people skip all that hassle nowadays and just use IP from the start.

    3. Re:The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. by Lanboy · · Score: 1

      Obviously you need to deep changes to the ip stack to make interaction work, but at a host level you just send your packet to the 128 bit address to your default route. Somewhere there are routers padding the 32 bit addresses with zeroes, but this is a tiny, tiny change compared to the ridiculous amount of proxying we will need to do with ipv6. There is the slowdown.

    4. Re:The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. by Lanboy · · Score: 1

      Netbui has been quietly labeled netbios over tcp. And microsoft cheats like a motherfucker because the active directory DNS requests are broken. So if you bother to sniff what your network is doing, you will see the dirty laundry of netbios over tcp filling in the gap.

      Throw in a dual stack DNS server infrastructure and it will not get better.

      I will ignore how they do things like random port udp packets for new mail messages, that will be fun with both ipv4 and ipv6 addresses to send the crap to.

      And if you are on the ipv6 standards board, I appologize for insinuating that you are a stupid fucker. Otherwise stfu you stupid mcse fucker.

    5. Re:The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Netbui has been quietly labeled netbios over tcp.

      Actually it was the other way around. MS stupidly named their implementation of Netbios over NBF NetBeui, which at the time meant something else. The confusion has stuck even though the MS NetBeui was replaced by their implementation of NetBios over tcpip (NBT). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBIOS

      Yes, their ipv4 and ipv6 dual stack does cause some issues. I believe they did this under the notion that IPv4 would be phased out quicker than it has been. Rather than overhaul and potentially break the existing IPv4 structure, they felt it was better to start clean on IPv6 and implement short term work arounds for the expected short transition.

      Oddly enough the stacks are not entirely seperate in Windows 7. For example, I've noted that disabling the IPv6 stack in Windows 7 via GPO can break some IPv4 functionality.

      Underneath the hood, MS has done some interesting things with the DNS and DHCP. Some of which are to get around limitations of the protocols (ie where its the dhcp server that can register the dns name).

      Nope, not on the IPv6 board just a Enterprise Admin for several large network. I do have MCTIP-EA and CISSP certs but that's only because my job title requires it. To me the MS certs are a marketing scheme and they're worthless without the experience to back it up.

    6. Re:The IPv6 Working Group is the real root cause. by rdebath · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you've got the idea of a 'ridiculous amount of proxying' from. The best solution to having a host connecting to both IPv4 and IPv6 hosts is to use dual stacks; that way you don't get any fragile hacks with routers inspecting and modifying the contents of the connection that your idea (which after all is a form of NAT) would involve. BUT it's quite possible to use NAT to connect between domains that have to be either pure IPv4 or IPv6. It's even got a special name: IPv6 NAT-PT. It lets a pure IPv6 host connect to any IPv4 host through a 'NAT' gateway and allows a pure IPv4 host to connect to selected IPv6 hosts through a 'reverse' NAT.

      It works as well as NAT ever does.

  33. 45.x.x.x by w00tsauce · · Score: 1

    If anyone is wondering interop is 45.x.x.x

  34. I plan to skip IPV6 by snsh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IPV6 never caught on, like Windows Vista caught on. Better to wait for IPV7.

    1. Re:I plan to skip IPV6 by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      You mean IPV6.1

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    2. Re:I plan to skip IPV6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? I see this as Insightful. IPv4 has a long long way to go until there are real problems that can't be fixed by already deployed methods. By that time we may have an IP standard worth mentioning and it will be called IPv42! Or is it IPv4.2?

    3. Re:I plan to skip IPV6 by DotNM · · Score: 1

      IPV6 never caught on, like Windows Vista caught on. Better to wait for IPV7.

      Wait for the first service pack too... IPv7, Service Pack 1

      --
      There's no place like localhost
    4. Re:I plan to skip IPV6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IPv5 never caught on, like Windows Vista caught on. Better wait for IPv6... oh wait...

    5. Re:I plan to skip IPV6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insolent fool, that's what they skipped IPv5 for

    6. Re:I plan to skip IPV6 by Combatso · · Score: 1

      use the open source IP tech... I think its called IPZilla

  35. Credit where credit is due to TFA... by KingAlanI · · Score: 2, Informative

    "ARIN warns that Interop's return will not significantly extend the life of IPv4. ARIN continues to emphasize the need for all Internet stakeholders to adopt the next generation of Internet Protocol, IPv6."

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  36. Also it doesn't have to be a hard switch by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    IPv4 and IPv6 can peacefully coexist. They already do on many networks and you don't know it. As I noted in another post, in domains this already happens. If you have Windows Server 2008 or R2 and Vista or 7 they'll just start doing IPv6 by themselves. When I look at the DNS for our AD a lot of hosts have A and AAAA records. You don't even know which IP you are using when you key in their name to ask for them. We didn't set any of this up, the OSes just have IPv6 stacks on them enabled and it all happens.

    Now not everything is nearly that simple, of course, but it demonstrates how easily they can coexist. So what is more likely to happen is that as IPv4 runs out and places hit in to limits, IPv6 will be used for new stuff. Maybe all new desktops are IPv6 only. Old equipment will keep operating on IPv4 and servers, that have both 4 and 6 can talk to both. As time goes on the IPv4 will become less and less important. Equipment will get replaced and eventually it'll be all IPv6, save for a smattering of legacy systems here and there.

    It is not a situation where you have to switch from 4 to 6. You can do both at the same time, no problem.

  37. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Hylandr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had security problems with Macs and IPv6. Part of our PCI-DSS compliance scanning services ran over the apple airport acting as the firewall ( yea don't go there ) and found every single ipv6 enabled device on the internal network.

    We had to disable all IPv6 in the building and I 'accidentally' dropped the airport when reaching up to 'reconfigure' it.

    My lack of adoption is my lack of confidence in an ipv6 firewall do a good job of blocking malicious attempts at access if everything has a publicly accessible IP. Have they designated private network ip blocks yet? Call me old school, but I like my NAT.

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  38. The problem is lack of bits by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

    So tack 32 more onto the existing working IPV4 technology. No need to change the INTERNET PROTOCOL so drastically. Just extend the address space of the currently working technology. Duh... Like it would be hard to add 4 bytes.

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    1. Re:The problem is lack of bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "IPv4 plus longer addresses" would be incompatible with IPv4 and would require updating all programs, OSes, and routers. Just like IPv6.

    2. Re:The problem is lack of bits by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      We're already almost done implementing IPv6. Most operating systems and Internet applications support IPv6 and have for years. There are some exception -- MySQL comes to mind -- but they're delaying mostly because IPv6 isn't in general use yet. The biggest roadblock is that ISPs are dragging their feet.

  39. I've been hearing those warnings for over a decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of a story about someone crying wolf.

  40. Let's go Digital TV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS!.

    Unfortunately for the guys that do not like government intervention, the migration to IPv6 needs to be pushed by government action (similarly to The Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005).

    It would be quite easy to give a deadline to all ISPs to change THEIR networks to IPv6.

    My ISP already "lends" me a modem (DSL) which receives the Internet signal and which I then connect to my LAN.

    As parent says, ISPs only have to provide a modem/Router bridging IPv6 (from your ISP) and IPv4 (for your LAN).

    1. Re:Let's go Digital TV! by delinear · · Score: 1

      What would have made things even simpler would have been legislation way back ensuring all new devices were IPv6 compatible. Of course, that would have added to the production cost so nobody wanted to do it, but you can bet we'd be jumping on the switchover a lot quicker if it meant reducing costs at this point in time (i.e. being able to finally ditch IPv4) instead of increasing them.

  41. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you real want a printer to have a global IP? do you want buy a newer printer / copiers just for IPv6? the high end ones cost alot.

    I already didn't want that for IPv4. So the printers aren't connected to the net directly, but behind the print server on another interface. That way my printers can only be accessed by my group, but my group can access their printers and the other 200 rendevouz using printers out there.

  42. They do it wrongly by higuita · · Score: 1

    They do it wrongly, they should have waited until the limit was reached, so all alarms would run off and force corps and ISP to implement IPV6... then after a few days/weeks they would give this block back, to easy the life late players and broken implementations

    those ipv4 company blocks are the last safeguard we have, after that, the late players are cut off until they setup proper ipv6

    --
    Higuita
  43. Need more incentive by xnpu · · Score: 1

    My services are all IPv6 enabled and I'm actually surprised that a good 5-10% of my traffic is in fact from IPv6 users.

    What I would like to see if for big companies (thinking Google, Microsoft, Facebook) to offer some IPv6-only features/services. It doesn't have to be spectacular, just enough to cause consumers to be aware and "remind" their ISP's to have a look at this IPv6 thing.

  44. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Lennie · · Score: 1

    You can definitly do that, no1 is stopping you. When IPv4 is not available anymore, does not mean you can't still use 192.168.0.0/16 on the inside. You can run IPX if you like.

    You can even still use the IPv4-addresses assigned to you. But you might need to add IPv6 soon, to get good performance when connecting to people who do not have IPv4 (when using peer 2 peer for starters or Skype, etc.).

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  45. Routers by AVryhof · · Score: 1

    What we need as a stop gap are routers that support IPv6, and IPv4 that don't start out at $800. (yeah, I checked)

    Routers should be able to connect to an IPv6 or IPv4 uplink, and hand out IPv4 and/or IPv6 to the internal network.

    This would solve a lot of the issues ISPs are having with switching to IPv6. Don't have a computer that supports it? Buy one of these routers.

    So, the initiative needs to start at companies who manufacture SOHO networking equipment. Most of the changes are software upgrades too.... I mean.... OpenWRT supports it on routers that don't support it out of the box. I wish they would get a contract with a manufacturer to build and sell a router that ships with OpenWRT...it could be called the OpenRouter, or RoWRTer.

    1. Re:Routers by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      My D-Link DIR-615 supports IPv6, with the manufacturer's firmware, and it cost $50.

  46. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Private IPv6 IP ranges have been designated:

    Link local addresses: fe80::* - automatically self-assigned by an IPv6 device, exist even if the device has a global address
    Unique local addresses: fc00::* / fd00::* - manually assigned, globally unique but not routable on the internet

  47. Does no one check for duplicate stories on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean come on, it's really getting shit now.

    Do the powers that be actually care any more?

    "Hey this story seems old enough, lets publish it!"
      "No wait, I published that yesterday! And I didn't bother checking the links or anything else."
    "Too late."
      "Ohh well, lets go circle jerk over some apple products."
    "K"

    You'll start making Digg look good soon FFS.

  48. Re: not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they had stable ipv6 support, yes, but no connection tracking that deserved the name. support for it in a bigiron router/firewall is quite a must unless you want to leave your corporate networks without firewalling.

  49. They can have mine back by Combatso · · Score: 2, Funny

    its 192.168.0.101, my laptop broke so i dont need it anymore.

  50. Re:Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always wondered... Do IANA lawyers use the full acronym IANAL?

  51. Profanity -1 by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

    Why did you spoil a good posting with profanity? Do you not know any better words?

  52. IPv6 Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I switched to a (Finnish) ISP that offers /64 block of IPv6 native addresses to all customers who request it. It's nice of them to hand me 2e+20 addresses but it does look a bit wasteful.

    All the more so because they are all bridged and thus unroutable and virtually unusable. They expect me to plug up to 2e+20 devices on the same LAN segment with their (DSL) gateway. I wonder how their neighbor discovery cache would handle that. I asked them to update their routing tables so that only a /120 block is used for routing but they weren't willing to do that.

    With numbering plans like this, I wonder if we are going to run out of IPv6 addresses before we even start using it.

    1. Re:IPv6 Issues by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Even handing out /64s, you've still got tons of address space. Most people completely miss the scale. Comparing the IPv4 address space to the IPv6 space is like comparing a square inch to the area encompassed by Pluto's orbit.

      And the "/64 is the smallest block we hand out" is current convention, mostly in the interest of keeping routing tables from getting too huge. They can always decide to hand out smaller blocks later.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:IPv6 Issues by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Correction : That should be comparing the IPv4 space to the number of /64 IPv6 blocks. Otherwise I'm off by a factor of about 4.2 billion.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:IPv6 Issues by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      My understanding was that the major reason for /64 blocks being the minimum was that the standard addressing scheme uses a node's 64 bit MAC address for the host portion of the IPv6 address.

    4. Re:IPv6 Issues by dossen · · Score: 1

      MAC is 48 bits. It is expanded to EUI-64 format by inserting 0xFFFE in the middle and flipping the 6th bit of the first octet. This is then used as the host part of the address.

    5. Re:IPv6 Issues by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      Doh!

      Thanks for the correction.

  53. hybred by luther349 · · Score: 1

    i think we need to keep anything on ipv4 on ipv4 and anything new on ipv6. leave alot more ipv6 space open. as someone said with how many isps east ips i wouldn't be surprised if they tried to move everyone tov6 the same problem comes up in a couple years.

  54. Biggest offender by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Every discussion about IPv4 address exhaustion prompts comments about whether Apple (or MIT, or UCB, or whoever) needs all of those addresses

    I notice how the biggest offender, Hewlett-Packard, is not mentioned. Why does HP need those /8 blocks that they've been inheriting over the years? Surely a technological company would know how to use NAT......

    1. Re:Biggest offender by compro01 · · Score: 1

      And they would also know why NAT is severely annoying when integrating newly purchased companies' networks and wish to avoid it.

      HP is hardly the biggest offender. The US DOD has 11 blocks, which I don't see why they need that many unless they assign public addresses to every tank, plane, ship, boat, and rifle they have.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  55. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, wouldn't it have been easier to check the box "disallow incoming IPv6 connections"?

  56. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by m50d · · Score: 1

    You're old-fashioned. If your router is routing packets to internal systems then your NAT is only giving you obscurity - anyone who guesses an internal IP address correctly will be able to connect to that machine. That's not a good way to get a secure system. If you want to block connections from the internet to internal machines... do it by blocking connections from the internet to internal machines, not by hoping no-one figures out your internal addresses.

    --
    I am trolling
  57. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    That was not an option.

    I suppose since you posted AC you were the one that modded Troll for disagreeing with the utterance of an actual event. Which is one of the things I do not like about Mac Fan boys. It's not enough to have a dissenting opinion, you have to persecute along with it.

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  58. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    We fixed the problem by removing the Mac device entirely and going with a dedicated hardware firewall solution and put wireless on the DMZ, and disabled wireless access for any machine on the wired network.

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  59. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by m50d · · Score: 1

    So you fixed the same problem in the same way for both IPv4 and v6?

    --
    I am trolling
  60. How nigh is the end? by Synonymous+Homonym · · Score: 1

    According to whom does the IPv4 pool last a month longer? It does not say in TFA.
    And when will it run out?

    The estimates I gathered were:
    2011-05-28 according to Intec NetCore,
    2011-06-05 according to Hurricane Electric.

    And now it is a month longer, is that global or just ARIN adress space?

  61. Re:We need a hybrid system maybe ipv6 outside ipv4 by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Possibly, at this point the boss was so whipped up over ipv6 it was safer for his health just to leave it off. :)

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  62. We should have started switching a decade ago by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

    The plan was, we were supposed to have a transitional period in which both IPv4 and IPv6 were in use. But there aren't enough IPv4 addresses left for a comfortable transitional period. We'll have to use complex, problematic approaches such as ISP-level NATs to stretch out the use of IPv4.