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."

50 of 270 comments (clear)

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

    Problem solved!

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

    IP ADDRESS MONSTER HUNGRY!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. 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!
  4. Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who are you, the owner of rackspace?

  5. 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)
  6. 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

  7. 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?

  8. 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 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!
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. Re:Probably awhile by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    8. 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.
    9. 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/
    10. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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!

  15. 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 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. I plan to skip IPV6 by snsh · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  23. 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.
  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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'

  28. 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?
  29. 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.

  30. 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

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

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

  32. 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.

  33. 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