Slashdot Mirror
Last Days For Central IPv4 Address Pool
jibjibjib writes "According to projections by APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston, IANA's central IPv4 address pool is expected to run out any day now, leaving the internet with a very limited remaining supply of addresses. APNIC will probably request two /8s (33 million addresses) within the next few weeks. This will leave five /8s available, which will be immediately distributed to the five Regional Internet Registries in accordance with IANA policy. It's expected that APNIC's own address pool will run low during 2011, making ISPs and businesses in the Asia-Pacific region the first to feel the effects of IPv4 exhaustion. The long-term solution to IP address exhaustion is provided by IPv6, the next version of the Internet Protocol. IPv6 has been an internet standard for over a decade, but is still unsupported on many networks and makes up an almost negligible fraction of Internet traffic. Unless ISPs dramatically accelerate the pace of IPv6 deployment, users in some regions will be stuck on IPv4-only connections while ISPs in other regions run out of public IPv4 addresses, leading to a fragmented Internet without the universal connectivity we've previously taken for granted."
It's called "tunneling." If you're playing those on a modern system capable of IPv6, the system can make the game see an IPv4 connection. It doesn't have to know the IPv4 connection is wrapped inside a v6 connection.
Most isp's don't give out ip6 addresses
Most home routers don't handle ip6 (apple is a notable exception here)
This is going to be a bit ugly for a while.
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
*points above*
That was the entire point of my post. You can give the game its own little network world. It sees IPv4, and the host does the translation to and from. When configured correctly, as with any app that no longer conforms to current technology standards, the app has its own little bubble where everything works as expected even though the rest of the world has moved on.
Next thing you tell me you can't own domain names or email addresses either? Of course you can't own numbers, but you can own IPv4 addresses
You can't own an IPv4 address. That's been the policy for over a decade.
And no, you can't own a domain name either. If you don't pay the renewal fee, and anyone can register it after it lapses - so you're just licensing or leasing it.
And since email addresses are connected to domain names, you don't own them either.
Rules for buying/selling of IPv4-addresses has already been put in place at the regional internet registries (RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, etc.) as far as I know.
Not that that is really all that important, if people just deploy IPv6 already.
It just helps to make IPv4 more expensive to run, which will just be one of many reasons to deploy IPv6.
New things are always on the horizon
You're overlooking that an IPv4 only host can't RESPOND to an IPv6 address. Instead you get IP6to4 NAT, which has to be a service provided by someone, that connects the IPv6 network to the IPv4 network, so the IPv4 destination sees the request originating from an IPv4 address.
it won't see an IPv6 address 'string'. That's the whole point.
NAT has been a solved problem for over a decade. an IPv4 network NATted behind an IPv6 network is not hard.
You can't own an IPv4 address. That's been the policy for over a decade.
The policy of the organization that OWNS them.
The problem is that the central orgs that assign IP address spaces reserve the right to revoke them at any time, for any reason (or no reason). So unless you're IANA or APNIC or RIPE or one of the other regional authorities, forget it.
Also, even they don't "own" the numbers - they just administer them. Nobody "owns" them. You can't "own" a number.
There's nothing to stop you from creating your own network, and using the same set of 4 billion numbers.
There's nothing to stop me from setting up a lilypad of wireless networked machines using the same set of numbers, running my own DNS server, and serving up my own domain system to whoever adds those servers to their /etc/resolv.conf file. Since it wouldn't be "The" Internet, just an "internet", it would be a good way for municipalities to neatly sidestep the incumbents attacks on municipal free access. Let individuals provide the gateways to the "real" internet.
What I don't get is why the people who came up with IPv6 didn't make the upgrade path easier? Obviously I'm missing something, but what if (for the sake of argument) they had decided that the first 'n' IPv6 addresses would correspond to the complete set of IPv4 addresses, and all IPv6 routers, etc, would understand that one of the first IPv6 addresses meant 'route the traffic to the corresponding IPv4 address'. Could that have been done?
This is the way it is. The first 4 billion IPv6 addresses maps to the entire IPv4 address space.
If so, then people could have been upgrading to IPv6 over the last 10 years as opportunities arose (ie as old equipment needed replacing they'd have replaced with the IPv6 option) and still have been able to see the IPv4 world. As more w/s moved to IPv6 only there would be a compelling reason for more people to follow suit ...
People could have been doing that but they didn't. So here we are.
Or am I completely missing something that would have made this impossible?
Yes, just mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 using this mechanism does not make it possible for your old IPv4 host to communicate with a IPv6 host using an address outside the 4 billion address space supported by IPv4. So what you describe is not actually backwards compability.
The real compability is called "dual stack" meaning all IPv6 hosts also have IPv4. As we are running out of IPv4 this might be using NAT to conserve addresses. People have been doing dual stack for a decade now, but just not enough. It is said about 0.5% of the traffic is on IPv6.
Your ISP was supposed to give you an IPv6 address along with your IPv4 address 10 years ago. But they didn't.
Your OS provider was supposed to make your OS support dual stack 10 years ago. They actually did.
Your router provider was supposed to make your router dual stack capable 10 years ago. They didn't.
Your software provider was supposed to implement dual stack support 10 years ago. To a large extend they did, but some programs are still lacking here.
It is actually mapped to both ::/96 and ::ffff:0/96 with the first option being depricated now, se historical notes on the ipv6 address page on wikipedia.
In practice neither is very useful except in a program that wants to use one data structure to store both v4 and v6 addresses.
Got to tunnelbroker.net. You can get IPv6 for free. Lots of instructions on how to set up IPv6 and people to help you debug your configuration if you need it.
There is a list here of IPv6 capable routers:
http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers
The list is by no means complete, so if you are aware of others then be sure to add it the list (you will need to register for a Sixxs account).
BTW At this point, if your ISP does not provide IPv6 support then you can try out 6to4 or Teredo. Myself I am currently using 6to4, since this is support by the Apple Airport Extreme, and all the devices on my network have an IPv6 address this way.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
It should be sort of obvious, but "ownership" is an institution that only holds practical meaning in the presence of government to define what is ownable, the limits if ownability, and to protect the rights of owners with police force.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The cost to switch to IPv6 is not flipping a switch. It will cost trillions upon trillions of dollars globally to migrate. Selling investments like that in the middle of a global recession is not small potatoes
People on slahsdot talk about IPv6 migration like it is simple - it is NOT. There are a lot more devices than your local router, and a lot more pieces of software then your desktop OS, that have to support IPv6 before it can be migrated. Companies have decades worth of software with hundreds upon hundreds of millions of lines of code, all assuming an IP is 4 bytes.
The IPv6 switchover makes the Y2k thing look like small potatoes, namely because the IP stack is a much more integral piece of functionality in a lot of software than the absolute date ever was - that and you have a lot more to switch over today than you did in 1999.
So anyway you look at it IPV6 is gonna be a serious clusterfuck. The idiot that made IPV6 without designing backwards compatibility really needs to be shot
Am I reading this right? You want to murder someone because others are too stupid to implement a standard half a decade ago?
How about just stating the obvious? Massive overreaction over Y2K so people learn and now don't react at all to EOL of IPv4 allocations. And frankly, you are the second idiot. Why IPv6 needs to be backwards compatible with IPv4? They are different protocols. If you actually look at it, there are improvements to the protocol that could NOT be backward compatible with IPv4, aside from address change.
....simply because the guys you have left are old, don't have the skills, haven't kept up, and have based their troubleshooting steps on tools and techniques that simply don't work anymore....
You know something, kid? I look forward to the time when you're 'old.'
Oh, and by the way? I don't care if you're smart enough to give Robert Metcalfe a run for his money and young enough to still be sucking on your thumb: With an attitude like yours, don't come around here looking for a job.
Regards;