Protect Your Pre-1997 IP Address

CWmike writes "With IPv4 space running out any day now, is your legacy IP address space safe? Marc Lindsey writes that if your company obtained its IP address space before 1997, you have probably received several letters from the American Registry for Internet Numbers encouraging you to enter into a contractual agreement to protect the IP address. But should you sign it? Be careful — there are several issues you should consider before signing up for this, writes Lindsey, who offers a deeper look at the issue."

Comments

Seriously?

[DarkKnightRadick]

There is nothing special about IPv4. Upgrade your systems to IPv6 already, folks. It's been around for what? 10 years now? Give me a break.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Upgrade your systems to IPv6 already, folks.

Yeah, just like that. ISPs should replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment, find sensible IPv6 transit providers and re-negotiate their peering arrangements (whom may not want to peer with IPv6), then allocate and assign IPv6 addresses to every single IP endpoint on their entire network and then spend a couple of million more replacing end-user network equipment that almost certainly doesn't support IPv6, then await the massive flood of complaints from users who have additional non-IPv6 equipment behind their router which no longer works E.g. almost every consumer VoIP phone every shat out by the lowest bidder.

That's just for a small ISP.

The major force holding back IPv6 deployment is shitty consumer hardware that doesn't "do" IPv6, and shitty network hardware vendors who charge an arm and a leg for IPv6 capable routers etc. (coupled with the fact that people have already invested a lot of money on non-IPv6 hardware anyway). It's not like the ISPs are doing it just to piss you off.

Re:Seriously?

[TheRaven64]

Yeah, just like that. ISPs should replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment

ISPs replace millions of dollars worth of high end network equipment every year. Capacity grows fast enough that anything more than a few years old is so laughably obsolete it's not worth maintaining. Anyone who's been buying equipment for an ISP and not mandating IPv6 compatibility for the last ten years really shouldn't still have a job.

Re:Seriously?

[the_fat_kid]

ok, I'll bite.
A five year life cycle?
IPv6 has been with us for 10 years?
That mean that you have had 2 chances to upgrade your equipment to something that would support it.
This is not some thing that has snuck up on you, your just cheap or lazy or afraid of the change.
I think that what you meant was, "Customers are not willing to pay more for the equipment and we don't want to cut in to our profits to update our hardware."
Except, of course for the fact that you have ignored this problem for over a decade.
nice

Re:Seriously?

[bell.colin]

It's not just Hardware you also have application software with limits, I support several at work that were purchased/developed in the last two year that require connection to a server running a background service.

The field for the server "REQUIRES" a x.x.x.x IP format (won't even except a host-name) and won't work any other way, some of this software is required by state law so it can't be replace with another product. (we have to wait for the lazy software devs at the company to change it)

I hate cheap-ass devs who still write software using their dusty copy of VisualBasic 4,5, or 6 and sell it to our users today for $50K.

Re:the internet a fuedal domain

[siride]

Yes, superficially, hierarchies look like other hierarchies.

Re:Why?

[isorox]

Why would it matter if you have the same IP address you've had for several years? Whats wrong with switching to a different one?

Ask wikileaks. We're entering a world where you can't rely on DNS.

Ya not so much actually

[Sycraft-fu]

I work at a university which is an ISP, as most universities are. We are still using Cisco 6500s from about 10 years ago, and will continue to use those 6500s for some time. They are actually upgrading a few of the core routers soon, but basically only because the central network guys want new toys to play with, the 6500s work fine. Despite the massive increase in campus bandwidth, those 6500s work just fine. We'd probably have to move to something bigger than 10gbit connections to buildings (which we are actually just moving to now) before they wouldn't.

Now the 6500s are flexible platforms, and you can buy new supervisors to do IPv6. We actually did this a couple years ago... At a cost of about $10,000,000. That is just to serve the 50,000ish users on campus. Also that is only the big core equipment. The edge equipment didn't have to be upgraded since it is all switched at that point.

This idea that ISPs just trash tons of high end equipment every year is stupid. High end stuff doesn't get replaced until it is necessary, and that can be a long, long time. If you want them to buy all new hardware yearly, well then be prepared for your bill to go way up.

Also, that isn't the only problem. IPv6 support is not good at all in the home. A lot of routers don't support IPv6. I bought a Linksys router/WAP about a year ago, one of the N ones even, no IPv6 support. So if my ISP went all v6 I'd have to rebuy it and you know people would be mad about that. Even computers are problematic. There's a lot of XP systems out there and it has no IPv6 support. Sure it can be installed, you really thing a non-technical user can handle that?

Before IPv6 is feasible we not only need more ISP upgrades, we need more upgrades at home. Also, we really aren't going to need a good 4-to-6 setup. We need some way in the home that old devices that don't support v6 and can't be upgraded can get a v4 address that can then be routed transparently through the connection's v6 address. If that exists, I've not seen it.

It is a complex issue, and hence not something that will get solved quickly. I don't think we'll really start seeing IPv6 adoption in a big way for several more years. Once device support is far more wide spread, and more network equipment has been upgraded, it'll be more feasible. Also, when IPv4 really DOES start to deplete, and by that I mean companies start to run out of addresses not just that the top level assignments are gone, then there'll be pressure to make it happen.

People forget that the "running out" that is spoken of isn't that all addresses will be gone. It is that all available high level blocks will be allocated to regional registrars. They will still have space to allocate, and even when they run out most ISPs will still have space to allocate. It is when the ISPs start running out, that is when we are ACTUALLY running out of IPv4 space in a meaningful way, and there'll be pressure to move to something larger.