Slashdot Mirror
Free IPv4 Pool Now Down To Seven /8s
Zocalo writes "For those of you keeping score, ICANN just allocated another four /8 IPv4 blocks; 23/8 and 100/8 to ARIN, 5/8 and 37/8 to RIPE, leaving just seven /8s unassigned. In effect however, this means that there are now just two /8s available before the entire pool will be assigned due to an arrangement whereby the five Regional Internet Registries would each automatically receive one of the final five /8s once that threshold was met. The IPv4 Address Report counter at Potaroo.net is pending an update and still saying 96 days, but it's now starting to look doubtful that we're going to even make it to January."
... since the unexpected end of the century in '99.
(What is actually surprising is that the internet still hasn't widely adopted IP6, and ISPs are now turning to ludicrous measures - NAT - to keep avoiding what makes sense.)
where is ATT and comcast with IPV6?
And have to push new TCP/IP stacks for most operating systems to get them to understand that that is now viable space. This would be effort better spent on just going IPv6.
Whens slashdot going to go ipv6?
I'm frankly terrified that the "solution" to this is not to fix the underlying issue, but instead to layer work-arounds on it.
Not to mention, unless I'm much mistaken a NAT can support 65536 connections at maximum (number of valid ports for outgoing connections). A /8 network might be okay, but putting a larger network behind NAT isn't going to help, and you can't layer them (because you still need a port free for the connection). We're going to run out, NAT just delays the inevitable by layering a giant administrative headache on the top.
what needs "public" IPs?
Anything that wants to participate in the peer-to-peer internet as a peer.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Some already are, others' aren't. It's not cheap, hence it'll be delayed, as always.
Dilbert RSS feed
And every router. In every office. And every home.
And who knows how many routers would have those addresses hardcoded in hardware.
It's probably just as easy to go IPv6, when you consider the hassles and testing.
Be relentless!
"Why not now"? Because slack-ass websites like the one you're currently browsing still haven't bothered to flip on the IPv6 switch. I have IPv6 at home (pretty much plug-and-play; just enable it on the Apple Airport base station and all of the LAN machines pick up an address) and the only site I've found to go to is "ipv6.google.com". OK, there's also a dancing turtle GIF on kame.net, but that doesn't really count.
Interestingly there is an "ipv6.slashdot.org" DNS entry. However it has no IPv6 "AAAA" record, only an IPv4 "A". Seriously guys, WTF? If a techie "News for Nerds" site can't be bothered to make itself available to IPv6 users then there's little hope for the rest of the web.
It ain't cheap if you're a major provider, but for the rest of us it is somewhere between dirt cheap to absolutely free.
It WOULD have been cheap or free for the major providers as well had they not spent the last 10 years with their heads buried in the sand. They could have gotten v6 capable routers as part of their normal upgrade cycle.
Have you not yet upgraded to classless routing protocols? Now just might be the time to do so
SSC
The whole thing is a lesson in waste and inefficiency.
Every business that I have ever known, or been involved with its network, was delivered anywhere from 4-32 IP addresses on their T1 lines. Just recently I setup a new business cablemodem connection and they just gave me ,without me asking, 8 IP addresses.
What the heck do I need 8 IP addresses for at a branch office? I don't really know of any businesses that really need a static IP address, much less multiple ones to host multiple publicly addressable servers. Everyone is either using the "cloud" or hosted services at a colo.
Demand is going to change things quite quickly. I expect that the first T1 line that is held up because there is no IP address for it is going to start things rolling. NAT is not a perfect solution and I sincerely doubt a company paying $500+ a month for a T1 is going to settle for being treated that way. Certainly not the IT staff.
Most guys I know are quite reasonable. If any ISP came to me and asked to reduce me down to 1 or 2 IP addresses per branch office or connection I would readily agree.
Now in the colo... that is another matter entirely. Some places I work with actually use a couple hundred different IP addresses for legitimate reasons.
It's all waste. IP address reclamation will get us back at least 40% of the address space.
IPv6 solves problems beyond just the raw number of bits for addressing.
In your example, 48 bits isn't enough space--in a few years we would be doing another next-gen IP, after implementing IPng as the CTOs start panicking. I don't want to deploy a new Internet every two decades, I'd rather get past the flaws in IPv4 once for my lifetime and start thinking about Y2038.
Convention is meant to be broken. But perhaps you ignore that we're speaking about bits, not decimal data. The subnet mask FFFFFF00 I see in ifconfig has the same meaning as /24 or 1111-1111 1111-1111 1111-1111 0000-0000 and we all know that because we're smart enough to read slashdot.
Decimal address can used all you like in IPv6. If you like 208.80.11.254, address your host as 2620:0:c0:1:208:80:11:254 and be happy; meanwhile I'd rather use stateless autoconfiguration or a simple address like n:n:n:1::53 for my nameserver.
Adoption could be less painless if you weren't citing address space that was deprecated and removed from the Internet five years ago. How is the 6bone keeping its memory alive for so long? Use 2001:db8:: for examples, or at least start an address with operational space like 2610. RIP 3ffe, 6/6/6.
Sounds like something ISPs actually wouldn't mind obstructing.
A curious key thing I fail to understand about this issue is why the ip4/ip6 issue encourages people to act so rudely towards other professionals who demonstrate at least some grasp of the underlying issue.
I think you ask a reasonable question, the question in my mind similar to yours: the transition from ip4/ip6 appears to be hard and this is a factor in it's slow adoption so what prevented the design a more gentler protocol that provided a smoother/simpler transition; particularly given our heavy reliance on this network in so many facets of our civilization?
As a programmer that does alot of network type stuff close to the metal, frequently designing my own OSI 7 protocols, I understand ip4 and higher layers very well, better than most IT professionals; but certainly not as well as a carrier network engineer. I know little about IP6 other than than regular reports about it's high barrier to entry and the inherent complexity associated with the change over. Maybe I need to make time and learn more about it now; but life is busy and other things compete for my time.
But to such questions can always be counted on being treated rudely by ip6 zealots. Just like the ruby programming language, I am keen to learn more when I get the spare time, and I dabble when I can, but in some ways disinclined given how rude and obnoxious the community advocating it can be.
Honestly, by reading your first two bullet points I really thought your post was a good joke. But when I consider the entirety of what you've written, there is a distinct possibility that it may be instead a sad story.
It would probably on buy a few more years to reclaim these addresses and chop them up, but surely the problem is just poor usage as opposed to exhaustion.
*SLAP*
Seriously, we've already done this. Repeatedly. At no point has the actual transition started happening, even with all the 'extra time' given it.
Attempting to figure out a way to get more time will not actually solve the problem at all.
At the very least, we need IPv4 to blow up first, so the transition actually starts. After that point, if need be, we can start looking for more IPs to use during the transition.
But first, we actually have to start.
I got new ISP service in August. I got a router with it. This router does not do IPv6. In August. 2010.
The problem isn't 'lack of time', the problem is LACK OF STARTING.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?