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."
I'm running IPv6 via tunnels since 2001. I'm running native IPv6 since my ISP did their first try-out via ADSL.
Come on guys, it is not that difficult. Why is slashdot.org still not accessible via IPv6?
bash$
Business organizations, like politicians, are usually extraordinarily risk-averse. This touches both in many ways, across many countries. As a result, there won't be any serious pushes into IPv6 until organizations can clearly quantify the damages that will be done from dragging their feet further. Only a small percentage of organizations will fully commit to IPv6 until the guaranteed costs of waiting exceeds the projected costs of moving forward.
Nobody should have expected anything different once the internet became controlled predominantly by public political and private business interests.
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.
People never do things en-masse because they thought it's a good idea. They do them because they're out of other options. No surprise there.
Experiments and other stuff
*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.
There's a very simple solution to this. We should be renting IP addresses, not handing them out. Make publicly routable IP addresses cost $1 a month. Many class A owners would be dying to give back address space that they aren't using. Isn't that the answer to a limited supply of anything? Set a value to them so they aren't wasted.
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.
At least a good amount of them can be refitted for IPv6 due to installing OpenWRT or DD-WRT or any of the other distributions out there. Maybe it's a business opportunity, flashing home routers to use one of those and reconfigure them to the initial settings afterwards?
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.
IPv6 is great, but they could have solved the problem far more elegantly 10 years ago.
Add two octets to the front of v4. Solved after a firmware flash.
Any existing IP becomes 1.0.x.x.x.x
If a router encounters a x.x.x.x address, it just appends 1.0 to the front.
The old internet and the new internet would have run side by side - for the most part working fine until everyone had updated their firmware.
Sure, it's not the engineering solution v6 is, but it would have been in use long ago.
They did this. Except they added 12 octets in front of v4 and mapped existing v4 addresses to 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x.
And the old and new internet runs side by side currently and we are just waiting for everyone to update their firmware.
An easy way to promote IPv6 would be if it were know or assumed that Google assigns higher pagerank to sites using IPv6 addresses. Then it would be something that customers of hosting companies would insist on, at least.
see a Text Widget
The "CS People" came up with the solution over 15 years ago. In fact, IP6 is a sucky, stripped down half-assed implementation of that really cool solution. Be sure to let the masses know it was power and money grubbing incompetent executive and managerial wankers who repeatedly delayed execution of the solution.
Problem was it greated more work without benefit.
Of course it did! It's a major infrastructure change! It's not like we were "upgrading the internet" to make it run faster. The entire issue was that our current addressing infrastructure was inadequate. It's like saying, "this road doesn't go to the housing development that they're building up the road - we should make it longer", then complaining that the existing drivers didn't see any benefit. Everyone on the internet right now is fine - it's everyone who's not that this will benefit. So of course it's work without benefit for those of us here now!
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
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.