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."
I can handle blocking IPv4 blocks based on geography given I have a US oriented website. But if you guys think you're going to unleash spammers from hell on me with a gazillion IP addresses, think again. As far as I'm concerned, you can give IPv6 to the Russians and Chinese on their own spam network.
The range of IPv4 addresses these people spam from is insane. Just give them back to us and go take IPv6 and spam yourselves into oblivion.
rd
1. There are enough IPv4 addresses available in US to cover pretty much everyone. So no issue here. Since I live in US, frankly, that's all the answer I need.
2. If there aren't enough IPv4 addresses - take away anything allocated to China, they don't use Internet in a fair or reasonable way anyway. Let them live in their own private little world.
3. NAT - because I only need 1 (one) IP address for my entire household. I decidedly don't want any of my multiple devices to be separately and individually addressable. (By the same token my fridge does not have a separate mailing address or a phone number, you have to call or write to *me* before you get to talk to it - if that's your thing of course)
4. Trading IP addresses and packing. It's a resource - and it will be dealt with as such.
5. If only people that designed IPv6 "by committee" though a bit about real world and technology, IPv6 would have been much easier to implement. 128 bit addresses are a *wrong* size. They should have set the size at 64 bit. 64 bit values are now natively manipulated by much of computer hardware, so just as the new protocol would come into wider use, it would be conveniently supported by many algorithms relying on hardware. Now go build a radix tree for a routing table of 128 bit IPv6 addresses - let's see how well that works.
6. IPv6 in default implementation wants to use your MAC address as part of the IP. I don't know, perhaps a few of those big companies that like tracking people so much may be interested in that. I am not.
In conclusion - I'll wait till stuff begins crashing around. May be then someone will come up with a better solution than a deadborn poorly designed IPv6 we have now.