Last Available IPv4 Blocks Allocated

Egypt ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 15:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Egypt has just given up theirs ...

Re:Egypt ... by 228e2 · 2011-01-31 15:17 · Score: 1

Not given up, just a gag order on all internet activity.

--
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
Re:Egypt ... by Genda · 2011-01-31 15:19 · Score: 1

Awww! but they all smell like camel...
Apparently IPv4 blocks are not like Doritos!
Re:Egypt ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 04:33 · Score: 0

Since they won't be communicating with us anymore, there is no way there will be an IP address conflict, and anyone with anything interesting to say has likely been beheaded already, we should take back the IP addresses from them.

IANA's final, not ARIN's final by Spazmania · 2011-01-31 15:19 · Score: 5, Informative

triggering ARIN's final distribution of blocks to the RIRs

I think you mean triggering IANA's final distribution. ARIN is one of the 5 RIRs who will receive a final /8 from IANA.

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.

Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 23:31 · Score: 0

IANABOFH, but WTF!? Am I supposed to know what all those letters stand for? Should I RTFM?
Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 00:03 · Score: 0

nah you can just STFU and GTFO. TYVM & HAND.
Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-01 00:04 · Score: 2

The article is about IPv4 addresses. These are used to uniquely identify hosts connected to a thing called the 'Internet'. Some of these hosts serve things called 'web pages', connected together in a thing called the 'world wide web'. A few of these pages let you use things called 'search engines', which give you information about a particular topic.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by tverbeek · 2011-02-01 01:57 · Score: 1

I'm afraid this explanation would go right over the head of the reporter who wrote this. After facing ridicule in the comments they fixed the absolute worst factual error, which read "Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit ones." But the rest is pretty clueless too. Who knew that HTML and PHP coders were responsible for the IPv6 transition? Besides Fox, I mean.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by Spazmania · 2011-02-01 08:32 · Score: 1

IANA = Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
ARIN = American Registry for Internet Numbers
Google "IP" or "IPv4" in connection with either acronym. You can't miss.

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by Kalriath · 2011-02-01 09:27 · Score: 1

Hurricane Electric still reports 1 remaining unallocated /8 - so the final one isn't out yet. Apparently it's two days before that happens at the current rate.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by darkpixel2k · 2011-02-01 15:57 · Score: 1

Hurricane Electric still reports 1 remaining unallocated /8 - so the final one isn't out yet. Apparently it's two days before that happens at the current rate.
Oh--well, as long as Hurricane Electric confirms it...

--
There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
Re:IANA's final, not ARIN's final by Kalriath · 2011-02-02 09:44 · Score: 1

Well, by contrast the IANA ranges list on their website still listed about 7 /8s, and Hurricane Electric is a backbone provider who receives BGP announcements of these things. Based on all the stories about near exhaustion, I figured I'd trust the smaller number.
That said, Netcraft hasn't confirmed it, so I don't know...

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

So the question is... by Apothem · 2011-01-31 15:19 · Score: 0

Will all hell break loose when this happens? Will it be Y2K all over again, except this time it's something legitimate?

Re:So the question is... by ss_teven · 2011-01-31 15:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unlikely, more like 'NAT' for regular users and pay extra $$$ for a real IP.

--
like a fox..
Re:So the question is... by Albanach · 2011-01-31 15:24 · Score: 2

You can hope. In reality, consumer ISPs will probably start using NAT since they gain little from customers doing anything that requires a public IP.
The majority of customers won't notice and the rest will suffer crippled services or be asked to pay a surcharge for a non NAT IP address. That has the potential to raise revenue for ISPs rather than implementing IPv6 which would incur expenditure.
Re:So the question is... by sjames · 2011-01-31 15:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Y2K was perfectly legitimate. It was only through heroic efforts that programmers were able to overcome years of managerial negligence and get the changes made in a knick of time. As is typical, since the herculean effort caused nothing to happen the world yawned and assumed the geeks were just moaning over nothing all along.
In this case, it's not a flag day where what worked a second ago no longer does. It's more along the line of pain slowly creeping up on you day by day until one day you realize it's actually excruciating.
It's been building for a few years, but few have seen the pain. In the '90s when you wanted a class C allocation, just ask and it was yours. Since then, the standards for justification have gotten tighter and tighter until you almost have to either exaggerate of consult a fortune teller to fill them out appropriately.
It WILL get worse, and it will ramp up quickly, but it won't be like Y2K might have been.
On a side note, a Y2K related issue (leap day implementing the 4 year and 100 year rule but not the 400 year rule) did result in a significant nuclear event at a Japanese fuel reprocessing facility.
Re:So the question is... by mysidia · 2011-01-31 16:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Y2K was perfectly legitimate. It was only through heroic efforts that programmers were able to overcome years of managerial negligence and get the changes made in a knick of time.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. -- God, (Futurama, 2002)
Re:So the question is... by Kjella · 2011-01-31 19:52 · Score: 1

Y2K was perfectly legitimate. It was only through heroic efforts that programmers were able to overcome years of managerial negligence and get the changes made in a knick of time. As is typical, since the herculean effort caused nothing to happen the world yawned and assumed the geeks were just moaning over nothing all along.
I'm sure that for many systems that was true. But to be honest, it passed with such a complete yawn that not only were all the important systems fixed, it seems all the "nice to have" systems were fixed as well. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that many people and companies used y2k as a tool to sell companies services they didn't need or at rates that were far too high.
When you finally got the ball rolling so many IT companies had a direct profit motive in continuing the scare propaganda that it was blown out of proportion beyond the actual size of the problem. In retrospect I realized how many doomsday cult nutters got their say in the media, how many IT executives, tech pundits and others with all graveness of a funeral proclaimed this was the biggest crisis in computing ever and so on. You got the mainstream press to scare the average person in the street with what could happen, not just CEOs.
I'm not saying it wasn't real. It was big, but the crisis built around it was even bigger.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:So the question is... by rdebath · 2011-01-31 20:45 · Score: 1

If they demand a surcharge make sure you don't pay it to your ISP.
Use a 'VPN' service for IPv4. eg: Swiss VPN give you an unfiltered public IPv4 for just 6 CHF per month.
Of course IPv6 tunnels are there for the asking.
Re:So the question is... by sjames · 2011-01-31 21:31 · Score: 1

Many were fixed. Most of the outward signs people saw was perl cgi scripts saying it was January of 19100 and such. Interestingly I saw a few things just last year where someone had papered over a Y2K bug with a simple offset to buy 10 more years, then ignored it for 10 years.
Of course there was excess hype. Vendors always do that to push "solutions" and the press practically exists for the purpose.
Re:So the question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 22:50 · Score: 0

I happen to know that some CC companies "worked around" the Y2K bug by simply disabling the date check... took years before that was fixed.
Re:So the question is... by gmack · 2011-01-31 23:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some of it was overrated but some of it actually helped by kicking the people who needed to open their wallets. Y2K consulting was painfully expensive because it was all done at the last minute when everyone who knew what they were doing was busy. Had the same companies started even a few years earlier they would most likely have been able to get the same service at half the price.
IPv6 is the same stupidity all over again. A few years back I worked for an isp and asked if I could try some test IPv6 deployments but was refused because no one could see a need for it in the next quarter. I don't even want to know how much work it will take them to set it up now that it is an emergency.
Re:So the question is... by silentcoder · 2011-02-01 00:22 · Score: 1

Y2K was legit numbnuts.
The only reason it didn't go wrong -was because a few million geeks spent a shitload of our time working our asses off fixing the problem before it could happen.
We missed a few spots - one nuclear reactor shut down things like that. But this was a real fear, based on a real problem - the fact that it didn't happen is proof of geek ingenuity and skill applied to solving a crisis before it could cause a disaster.
It's an event geeks should be thanked and celebrated for - deriding it as hype... well I guess that just proves we did our jobs too well.
The grand irony is - that the worst that could happen with running out of IPv4 was never as bad as what would have happened with Y2K if every damn geek on the planet hadn't been busy preventing it. That was before we had things like NAT.
Nowadays, the actual impact is relatively small - though it's harmful to the internet in many ways, it's not disastrous in the short term (it does the spirit of the internet much more harm - but facebook and google won't suffer).
Even then - we have the next generation technology, IPv6 is waiting. It would have been kind of cool to have finished the switch before we actually ran out of IPv4 entirely - because it's a much better internet we can build with it... but that is looking less and less likely ever year.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Re:So the question is... by VGPowerlord · 2011-02-01 02:57 · Score: 1

Most of the outward signs people saw was perl cgi scripts saying it was January of 19100 and such.
I had one that did that... like most people, the developer of it didn't realize that:
1) Perl has a time formatting command in the Posix module (strftime) (and now lots of other modules)
2) Perl's built in date function returns the year as the number of years since 1900.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:So the question is... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-02-01 04:33 · Score: 1

You insensitive clod. I live in the US, we've been forced to do that from the beginning.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

I know where to get some by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 15:20 · Score: 0

Maybe we can recycle Egypt's, they don't seem to want them...

Re:I know where to get some by rudy_wayne · 2011-01-31 16:20 · Score: 2

Maybe we can recycle Egypt's, they don't seem to want them...
Too bad nobody actually has the guts to do that. Take everything allocated to Egypt and give it to someone else. If they complain, just say "You shut down the Internet in your country, you obviously didn't want them anymore."
Re:I know where to get some by Jeremi · 2011-01-31 16:49 · Score: 2

Take everything allocated to Egypt and give it to someone else. If they complain, just say "You shut down the Internet in your country, you obviously didn't want them anymore."
So you would take away the Egyptian peoples' IPv4 access forever, because their tyrannical ruler engaged in Internet censorship?
I'm not sure I see the logic behind that.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:I know where to get some by mysidia · 2011-01-31 16:53 · Score: 1

Too bad nobody actually has the guts to do that. Take everything allocated to Egypt and give it to someone else. If they complain, just say "You shut down the Internet in your country, you obviously didn't want them anymore."
That could be reasonable... however, the RIR community that has the power to make that decision is AfriNIC. They won't consider it due to the permanent damage it would cause.
If Egypt permanently disconnects, and if they revoked the IP addresses, they would be available for further assignments in the African region, but I don't think there is that much demand for IP space in that region, so the result is the IPs would sit unused for 1-2 years, probably.
Re:I know where to get some by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 17:52 · Score: 0

Im not sure I see the logic in you not using quote tags.
Re:I know where to get some by eugene+ts+wong · 2011-01-31 18:49 · Score: 2

Wouldn't it be better to do it anyways? AfriNIC could give them IPv6 addresses, and Egypt could get back online when they are ready.

--
testing out my trending skills
Re:I know where to get some by xenobyte · 2011-01-31 19:21 · Score: 1

Brilliant idea! - Use'em or lose'em!

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:I know where to get some by mysidia · 2011-02-01 14:54 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be better to do it anyways? AfriNIC could give them IPv6 addresses, and Egypt could get back online when they are ready.
It would be better to do so, if it looks like Egypt will be disconnected for an extended period.
If Egypt is disconnected for 30 days or more, then the RIR should start asking questions. And prepare to take measures to reclaim IPs.
Longer than 60 days, then IP revokation/usage review should definitely start.

GONE by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 15:20 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"VESPENE GEYSER EXHAUSTED"

Re:GONE by Culture20 · 2011-01-31 15:44 · Score: 1

I like this analogy best since vespene geysers actually have limitless capacity after depletion.
Re:GONE by spydum · 2011-01-31 16:07 · Score: 1

Pretty sure you can still mine vespene gas after it's depleted, just has lower yields.
Re:GONE by teh+dave · 2011-01-31 16:23 · Score: 1

Not anymore they don't... (In StarCraft II, gas properly runs out just like minerals do)
Re:GONE by Alioth · 2011-01-31 23:13 · Score: 1

No you can't -- when the vespene geyser is out, your peons won't enter the extractor/assimilator/refinery any more. 0 vespene extraction from that geyser.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Comcast user here... by Howitzer86 · 2011-01-31 15:23 · Score: 2

I seem to have failed an online IPv6 test. Should I be worried?

Re:Comcast user here... by petermgreen · 2011-01-31 15:38 · Score: 1

Whether you should be worried depends on what you use your internet connection for.
If you only use it for conventional client stuff you shouldn't worry too much, I would expect important services to remain available on IPV4 for a long time. On the other hand if you do stuff that relies on incoming connections you should be aware that at some point your IPV4 service may be put behind ISP level NAT to free up IPv4 addresses for more important uses (though comcast is in a better position than most on this because they are running some of their internal infrastructure on public IPv4 and planning to migrate it to IPv6 which will free up addresses to use for end users). You may get offered IPv6 service as well but it's far from certain and even if you do there is no guarantee that the people trying to connect to you will have IPV6.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Comcast user here... by SheeEttin · 2011-01-31 15:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Not yet, Comcast is currently trialling IPv6 in select locations (i.e. San Francisco, NYC, Boston, etc.). They expect to roll out IPv6 to the rest of us some time this year. (You can keep up with their progress here.)

Meanwhile, if you really want IPv6 for whatever reason, I set up a tunnel with Hurricane Electric. After configuring my computers and router (DD-WRT, IPv6 is fully supported), I had IPv6 both internally and externally (i.e. IPv6 DHCP and access to the IPv6 Internet). You can set your own up here.
(I took it down shortly afterward, because I don't know about any security ramifications this would have.)
Re:Comcast user here... by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · 2011-01-31 15:45 · Score: 1

Hmm, the full test requires some browser holes (intentional). It doesn't work under Chromium 9 (dev version), even if I have JavaScript enabled (by default).
OTOH I get 2/3 white-on-green check marks on the simple version of the test for methods "IPv4" and "IPv4 or IPv6". I get a broken (no) image for the third method, pure "IPv6".
Re:Comcast user here... by KiloByte · 2011-01-31 15:45 · Score: 1

If you got 7/10 on IPv4, all is ok. The explanation says it clearly that no problems are expected for you when AAAA records will start being published, as your system will gracefully ignore them.
Even with fully working IPv6 you may get less than the max if your DNS server isn't fully up to scratch, like Google's 8.8.8.8.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Comcast user here... by sjames · 2011-01-31 15:45 · Score: 2

Have you set up to use Comcast's 6to4 or 6rd tunnel service? I am on Comcast with 6rd set up and I get 9/10 (only warning is that Comcast DNS isn't on v6 yet).
Have a look here for 6rd instructions. Otherwise, set up 6to4 using 192.88.99.1.
Re:Comcast user here... by KiloByte · 2011-01-31 16:01 · Score: 1

Except for a godawful text display, it works just fine for me on Chromium 9. 10/10, 10/10. Default settings, no extensions other than their fake AdBlock since I don't use Chromium for anything but a rare test, so there must be something amiss in your configuration

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Comcast user here... by Undead+Waffle · 2011-01-31 16:45 · Score: 0

Being a Comcast user is always a good reason to be worried, so yes.
Re:Comcast user here... by corbettw · 2011-01-31 16:46 · Score: 1

Don't worry, you're on Comcast. You have enough problems without worrying about IPv4 vs v6 as it is.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Comcast user here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 16:46 · Score: 0

Depends. Is it a router problem, or with your computer(not every OS version supports IPV6), or is it Comcast that is having the problem?
hard to say from here, without seeing your results.
Re:Comcast user here... by rdebath · 2011-01-31 18:51 · Score: 1

I've got 10/10 for both IPv4 and IPv6 using firefox with adblock and NoScript. I get some complaints unless I unblock them from NoScript but I still get 10/10.
Re:Comcast user here... by marka63 · 2011-01-31 22:51 · Score: 1

Unless you have some blinding desire to go IPv6 only there is no rush on the consumer grade IPv6 capable network printer as you can run dual stack (IPv4 +IPv6) in the house forever if you want to. That said I've got a colour networked laser printer at home that supports IPv6. It was just a matter of looking for it.
For most homes the only thing that will needed to be upgraded will be the router. The rest can wait until they stop working or you want to upgrade for some other reason. Just look for IPv6 support when you buy your next product.
Re:Comcast user here... by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 01:45 · Score: 1

I get 7/10 with a working SixXS tunnel and 8.8.8.8 as nameserver.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Comcast user here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 01:46 · Score: 0

I stopped reading after you said you have IPv6 DHCP setup. Nice try though.
Re:Comcast user here... by swillden · 2011-02-01 02:01 · Score: 2

i.e. IPv6 DHCP
Why did you go with DHCP rather than the simpler, faster and cooler stateless autoconfig with radvd?

I took it down shortly afterward, because I don't know about any security ramifications this would have
None, assuming you set up a firewall to block incoming IPv6 connections.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Comcast user here... by KiloByte · 2011-02-01 02:06 · Score: 1

Care to mention which tests do fail? I'm on SixXS as well, and get better results.
With a plain bind9 installation with no relevant configuration changes, I get 10/10, 10/10; and with 8.8.8.8 -- 10/10, 9/10. The only test that fails when using Google is the ability to resolve domains handled by IPv6-only DNS servers.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Comcast user here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 03:28 · Score: 0

I took it down shortly afterward, because I don't know about any security ramifications this would have.
None, assuming you know a little about what you're doing.
Just like IPv4, you should make sure all v6 traffic passes through a firewall that you can configure to block inbound traffic. Do that and you should be no more at risk over v6 than you are, today, over v4 (and probably less so, given that far fewer blackhats are attacking machines over v6).
Re:Comcast user here... by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 04:04 · Score: 1

2, 3, 6, and 7 fail. The doofus "lameness filter" won't let me post the results.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Comcast user here... by KiloByte · 2011-02-01 04:56 · Score: 1

Uh oh. This means, all tests that actually haul something over IPv6 rather than dual stack. It appears that your tunnel doesn't work right.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Comcast user here... by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 05:34 · Score: 1

> It appears that your tunnel doesn't work right.
I had forgotten about Privoxy, which runs on a different machine without IPv6. Turned that off and only test 3 fails. Google doesn't want to return an AAAA record for test-ipv6.com.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Comcast user here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 06:06 · Score: 0

The security ramifications are simple: You have a publicly-accessible IP address on every host which has a v6 IP. Treat it appropriately.
Re:Comcast user here... by wertigon · 2011-02-01 06:10 · Score: 1

Why DHCP? Because:
1. Allows better control of what addresses end up on what subnet (e.g. I might want to have my servers on the 0:dead:beef:1 subnet and my clients on the 0:dead:beef:2 subnet)
2. Doesn't require me to manually reconfigure lots of IP addresses - set it once in DHCP and it's enough
3. Autoconfig doesn't guarantee a machine will have the same IP while DHCP will ... And a few other reasons.
TLDR; Better security, more convenient to administer.

--
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Re:Comcast user here... by SheeEttin · 2011-02-01 07:46 · Score: 1

Why did you go with DHCP rather than the simpler, faster and cooler stateless autoconfig with radvd?
I think that's actually what I did. I don't quite remember.

None, assuming you set up a firewall to block incoming IPv6 connections.
This I didn't. Although it seems DD-WRT has an ip6tables package, so maybe I'll install that and set it up there.
Re:Comcast user here... by reuteler · 2011-02-01 08:26 · Score: 2

3. Autoconfig doesn't guarantee a machine will have the same IP while DHCP will ....
sure it does. autoconf is based on the mac address and the subnet as advertised by the router (rtadvd on openbsd) -- the address will always be the same. you really are just making your life difficult.

--
david reuteler
Re:Comcast user here... by baerm · 2011-02-01 10:17 · Score: 1

Why DHCP? Because:
1. Allows better control of what addresses end up on what subnet (e.g. I might want to have my servers on the 0:dead:beef:1 subnet and my clients on the 0:dead:beef:2 subnet)
If they're physical subnets, this shouldn't be a problem. If they are logical subnets, you could let each machine have an address in each network, it probably wouldn't matter too much. It also looks like (i.e. untested by me) you could set up auto-configuration to configure a specific addresses per machine, although I don't see this as any better than DHCP (i.e. you have to have a separate address configuration for each network node in either case.)

2. Doesn't require me to manually reconfigure lots of IP addresses - set it once in DHCP and it's enough
Setting an address prefix once in the router versus having to have a configuration on the DHCP server for each individual machine? I'm not seeing the advantage.

3. Autoconfig doesn't guarantee a machine will have the same IP while DHCP will ... And a few other reasons.
TLDR; Better security, more convenient to administer.
It does guarantee the same address (unless you change prefixes, but if you're doing that all your addresses are changing anyway, and given the prefix, you'll know the new address). I don't see any more convenience to have to update individual machines within a DHCP configuration as opposed to just changing a network prefix, but I may be missing something. As for security, the internal MAC addresses can be hidden by not using auto-configure. I'm not sure this is a big gain, it assumes you're not using a firewall to hide internal addresses anyway (port forwarding, IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT, or something), in which case the attacker knows the addresses of externally visible machines. Having the MAC address of the machines as well is probably not a huge advantage (although hiding them certainly wouldn't hurt).
Re:Comcast user here... by wertigon · 2011-02-01 11:24 · Score: 1

Then how about this?
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1896663

--
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Re:Comcast user here... by wertigon · 2011-02-02 03:08 · Score: 1

Knowing the MAC address, which is as good as globally unique, has severe privacy leaks. If I know your MAC-address, and the MAC-address is a part of your IP address, then I can see exactly which networks you have visited with that device.
Law enforcement and criminals alike will have a field day with those. I can think of a dozen ways to abuse it.

--
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Re:Comcast user here... by reuteler · 2011-02-02 05:17 · Score: 1

well.. point #1 is that the mac address portion of the derived autoconf address can be used to track individual machines. i suppose that's true.. it's a good point. the same is also true (tho to a lesser degree of certainty) of static dhcp leases. on ipv4 the problem is usually mitigated at least from the internet side by using NAT to hide the internal ip address. but ipv6 regardless of dhcp exposes the internal ip address externally. #2 (using the 64 bits to pass a covert message) is silly, imo and i'm actually not understanding how dhcp fixes it. what's to stop you from just using autoconf even in the presence of a dhcp server and if caught, huh, dhcp didn't work? it's an inherent problem to ipv6 that you can imbed messages in an address space as large as 64 (of 128) bits.

--
david reuteler
Re:Comcast user here... by Howitzer86 · 2011-02-03 08:20 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info.

Egypt by OKCommuter · 2011-01-31 15:26 · Score: 0

Perhaps Egypt has some to spare?

Something Something Egypt Something Something by killmenow · 2011-01-31 15:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Hey, has anybody said anything witty about Egypt yet?

Remember, I said witty.

Re:Something Something Egypt Something Something by jon3k · 2011-01-31 15:34 · Score: 2

Nope, just the same joke about half a dozen times (out of about 10 posts)
Re:Something Something Egypt Something Something by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 15:42 · Score: 1

"I didn't know you were Egyptian."
"Huh? I'm not Egyptian."
"Really? 'Cause you're in de-Nile."
BOOM!
Re:Something Something Egypt Something Something by psithurism · 2011-01-31 16:19 · Score: 1

How many IP 4 blocks do you think Egypt does not need anymore? That ought to help us out for awhile.
Re:Something Something Egypt Something Something by FuckingNickName · 2011-01-31 22:20 · Score: 1

Hey, I only learnt last week that NASA freed Egypt from the British!

Sorry, this story must be censored by ravenspear · 2011-01-31 15:28 · Score: 1

"final distribution of five /8 blocks"

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times.

You do NOT talk about the final five!

Re:Sorry, this story must be censored by gstrickler · 2011-01-31 16:33 · Score: 1

You do NOT talk about the final five!
Final five? I thought is was the Final Four, and that it was usually in March.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Sorry, this story must be censored by ravenspear · 2011-01-31 18:54 · Score: 1

I guess bsg has been off the air too long for people to get that reference. :)
Re:Sorry, this story must be censored by CTU · 2011-01-31 20:43 · Score: 1

"final distribution of five /8 blocks"
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times.
You do NOT talk about the final five!
lol you made my night with that comment :)

Watch out for those Pyramid s(p|c)ams then by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · 2011-01-31 15:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Hi, I'm General Tutan Khamun. As commander of the Royal Camel Battalion, I was in charge of the valuable ancient artifacts of the Arab Republic of Egypt. However because of ongoing chaos in the country, numerous treasures have been lost. For a small fee, you can help me recover these artifacts and return them to their rightful owners. Please send me your contact detail$$$ and I will call you back.

May Pharaoh be with you!

Re:Watch out for those Pyramid s(p|c)ams then by dgatwood · 2011-01-31 17:15 · Score: 1

No, no, it's:
Hi, I'm General Tutan Khamun. As commander of the Royal Camel Battalion, I was in charge of paying the families of military dead in the Arab Republic of Egypt. However because of ongoing chaos in the country, numerous records have lost, and many dead have no recorded heir. Therefore, the payouts to families are large.
We need a person outside Egypt to serve as an intermediary to help transfer funds to heirs in the United States. In exchange for your help, we will pay you the some of TEN MILLION $10,000,000 U.S. DOLLARS dollars for helping us transfer these funds.
Please send me your contact information and I will call you back.
(Note: All misspellings, missing words, etc. are deliberate except for those that weren't.)

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Watch out for those Pyramid s(p|c)ams then by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 05:46 · Score: 0

sound like a pyramid scheme! don't get involved
Re:Watch out for those Pyramid s(p|c)ams then by guyminuslife · 2011-02-01 19:25 · Score: 1

Aww, your shell scripts don't work in my Cygwin terminal. :-(

--
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Re:Watch out for those Pyramid s(p|c)ams then by dgatwood · 2011-02-03 08:35 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, what breaks? Any interesting error spew?

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 15:37 · Score: 0

Then it will be too late.

Don't worry more IPs are coming... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 15:37 · Score: 0

I hear Egypt is giving all their IPs back...

Re:Don't worry more IPs are coming... by shentino · 2011-01-31 19:52 · Score: 1

It'll be interesting to see how companies sitting on piles of v4's react when their hoarded addresses start looking very attractive on the black market.
Re:Don't worry more IPs are coming... by Kalriath · 2011-02-01 09:48 · Score: 1

Yes, but as IP space is non-transferable, the response from IANA if they try sell them will be swift and merciless.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Get a tunnel. by John+Hasler · 2011-01-31 15:47 · Score: 3

SixXS
Hurricane Electric
And others.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Re:Get a tunnel. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 15:55 · Score: 1

So... Do these 'tunnel' thing works through NAT?
Re:Get a tunnel. by Suzuran · 2011-01-31 17:51 · Score: 2

Usually.
Re:Get a tunnel. by JWSmythe · 2011-01-31 18:37 · Score: 1

I've looked at those a few times. I'm actually a member of ... umm ... both, maybe? It's been a while since I looked at it.
I wanted to set up the tunnel for my web servers, so I could make my sites IPv6. I started out with the tunnel on my desktop first. This was only maybe a year ago. It was fun and games. I was all happy having my IPv6 block. I could go to all the IPv6 sites. All dozen or so of them. Hrm. Then the service was going bad. At best, I had maybe 6 hours of uptime at any given time. Since I wasn't really using anything for it, since ... well ... there's nothing to do on the uber 'leet IPv6 bone, I didn't really think much about it. Until it started getting worse uptime. Every couple minutes, it was up and down. It wasn't my connection. It was some routing issue between me and the gateway. Imagine that, transversing the entire US, there could be some issue. So I uninstalled it.
Even though you have the geek cred for having an IPv6 address, you still have to have the IPv4 address to use it. So in reality, it was completely fucking useless.
When ISP's start handing out IPv6 address, **AND** they are routed, **AND** there are sites using them, then I will be impressed.
Sorry, the infrastructure isn't there. It won't be there tomorrow. It won't be there by the end of the year.
We will see widespread NAT usage. And it won't destroy the Internet. It'll muck up your bittorrent traffic to some degree. Just about everyone works behind a NAT anyways. I've mucked about with some implementations that had 3 levels of NAT, and those worked fine. The only thing that didn't work was being able to directly access machines behind so many levels. Every modern protocol works.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Get a tunnel. by wet-socks · 2011-01-31 19:18 · Score: 2

We will see widespread NAT usage. And it won't destroy the Internet. It'll muck up your bittorrent traffic to some degree. Just about everyone works behind a NAT anyways. I've mucked about with some implementations that had 3 levels of NAT, and those worked fine. The only thing that didn't work was being able to directly access machines behind so many levels. Every modern protocol works.
Exactly. As long as you're a content consumer. The internet becomes another cable TV channel for the masses. Good luck if you want to be a content provider - better go make a facebook page or upload to youtube.
Re:Get a tunnel. by smash · 2011-01-31 19:49 · Score: 2

That and the fact that ISP routers will run out of state table space and CPU.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:Get a tunnel. by ewanm89 · 2011-01-31 20:22 · Score: 1

so you recieved multicast broadcast TV at ISP level through all three NAT's now? Cause I can't get it to work through one level of NAT here.
Re:Get a tunnel. by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-01 00:06 · Score: 1

You need a public IP to use 6to4 or an explicit tunnel. You can use Teredo from behind a NAT. Windows Vista and later have shipped with Teredo by default, and it's pretty trivial to enable from any other OS.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Get a tunnel. by JWSmythe · 2011-02-01 02:08 · Score: 1

Consider someone like Verizon. If every Verizon FiOS residential user were behind a NAT. There are 3.1 million users. By the ToS, you aren't suppose to be a content provider on a residential line. If even a /16 were used for them (65k IP's), that would still leave about 3 million IP's for their commercial customers. And yes, I am both. I use residential services, and I have a commercial line with servers on it. I have enough IP's for my servers, and I NAT everything that doesn't need a public IP.
Most commercial accounts that I've dealt with have too many IP's assigned to them. If you have a decent line, you have at least one /24. I've seen so many cabinets in datacenters with a handful of machines (say 10 machines), with maybe 15 or 20 IP's used, but they still have 256 IP's routed to the cabinet. Next time you go do work at a datacenter, count how many cabinets have any equipment, and then count how many units are in each. Say there are 100 cabinets, with 1000 machines total. There are probably about 25k IP's delegated, and real justification for 1500. Still, the real savings are in residential lines. Most houses don't need a public IP, and would do fine with a NAT address. If you *really* need one, they could delegate you a public address.
In traveling, I've seen a handful of hotels that offer a public IP. Most give you a NAT address right off. Their performance hit isn't from the NAT, it's from the fact that they have a few hundred rooms running off a single DSL, and all it takes then is one kid firing up a bittorrent client to ruin it for the rest of the hotel.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.

Re:Who Cares? by sjames · 2011-01-31 15:50 · Score: 4, Informative

How would I do that with you sitting in that backwater swamp of IPv4 with your fingers jammed in your ears prattling on about how you don't believe in that newfangled IPv6 thing and that it's probably the work of the devil?

which will roll out first? by metalmaster · 2011-01-31 15:54 · Score: 2

IPv6 or Duke Nukem Forever?

The race to the consumer roll out is on!

Re:which will roll out first? by Jeremi · 2011-01-31 16:40 · Score: 1

IPv6 or Duke Nukem Forever?
I've got IPv6 running on my Mac right now. OTOH, I looked on the App Store, and didn't see Duke Nukem Forever available for download. :^(

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:which will roll out first? by metalmaster · 2011-01-31 16:48 · Score: 1

Current operating systems support IPv6, but consumer grade routers and a few ISP's havent jumped on the bandwagon yet
Re:which will roll out first? by Jeremi · 2011-01-31 18:16 · Score: 1

Current operating systems support IPv6, but consumer grade routers and a few ISP's havent jumped on the bandwagon yet
All very true, but unlike DNF, the code for IPv6 definitely exists and definitely works. It's just (haha!) a matter of actually installing it in the places it needs to be installed.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:which will roll out first? by Mark+Hood · 2011-01-31 21:33 · Score: 1

What do you want to bet the Duke Nukem developers are sitting around right now saying 'so who's going to tell the boss we need a little longer to add IPv6 to the multiplayer code?'

--
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
Re:which will roll out first? by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-01 00:35 · Score: 1

The grandparent is exhibiting the symptoms of being an Apple fanboy, so probably has an Apple router as well. These support 6to4 and advertise as v6 routers on the local network, so if he's got one then he's already got v6 support, although with some encapsulation overhead until his ISP finally deploys native connectivity.
Any Windows user with Vista or 7 probably has Teredo support enabled, so they will be in a similar position (although with slightly more overhead), irrespective of their routers' capabilities.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:which will roll out first? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 04:01 · Score: 0

IPv6 runs on Hurd
Re:which will roll out first? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 05:14 · Score: 0

Due to recent changes in IPv4 availability, Duke Nukem Forever has been delayed for an additional 6 -8 months.
Sincerely,
The DNF team
Re:which will roll out first? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 06:00 · Score: 0

Yeah, but Duke Nukem at least has a release period scheduled.

Re:Who Cares? by zippthorne · 2011-01-31 16:00 · Score: 2

Indeed. It's just a stupid number. How did we ever manage to get ourselves into a position where we could run out of numbers.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-01-31 16:06 · Score: 2

where are IPV6 routers and modems??

Where are the router firmware updates with IPV6? What about all the Cable and DSL modems? What about cable boxes? they get IP's and run on the cable network.

Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Cimexus · 2011-01-31 16:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Some consumer routers have already supported it for some time: e.g. the Apple Airport Express, some NetComm routers, Fritz!Box (popular in Europe, mostly). For the rest, the firmware will be forthcoming, no doubt. My DSL modem/router manufacturer (Billion, http://www.billion.com/) has already released firmware updates to some models to enable native dual stack. My particular model is due to be updated 'Q1 2011', so within the next two months. Which is great as my ISP already has native IPv6 available to its end customers now and a fully IPv6 backbone, so it should be a seamless transition.
Having said that there are slack router manufacturers and crappy ISPs that have sat on their hands for too long and will now have to madly scramble. (Or implement carrier grade NAT which is an ugly kludge - I would immediately leave any such ISP that implemented it).
There is one small problem however: some cheap/old routers don't physically have the onboard memory to fit a firmware containing both an IPv4 and IPv6 stack. So there will definitely be some users that need to physically replace their hardware, unfortunately.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by tlhIngan · 2011-01-31 17:32 · Score: 1

What about a simple IPv6 router that works just like our IPv4 home gateway NAT routers today?
I mean, so far playing with IPv6, to have an all-IPv6 network, each PC gets 3 IPv6 addresses. They get a link-local address (which stays on the local network and won't cross a router). Then if I want to enter their IP addresses, I really should use something in the FC00::/64 range (which makes for easy typing), to avoid having to type in the cryptic strings instead. Finally, to get on the 'net, they have a random /64 prefix assigned by my ISP so it can pass through the routers properly.
What. A. Mess. And should your ISP decide to renumber their network, boom, every machine on the network gets a new IP address.
Where's our NAT64 devices - port forwarding works fine for me, and I can use it to ignore the link-local addresses (assigning FC00::/64 addresses as I do 192.168.x.x ones). I don't care what address my ISP gives me, and if they renumber my network, big whoop. Worst I have to do is reboot my router, not have to go and make sure every machine (PC, consoles, amps, tivos, etc - you can bet the number of embedded devices will climb rapidly) latched onto the fact that my network got renumbered.
Want quick and easy IPv6 deployment? Get us a box that we can drop in for our existing IPv4 routers and where I don't have to learn or explain all the frakking IPv6 crap to my mom who just wants her iPad, iPhone, and PC to work.
And IPv6 isn't the panacea of endpoint connectivity that everyone has been hoping for - ignoring NAT64 stuff, we've got firewalls and the like that'll break endpoint connectivity like it has for IPv4.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by The+Psyko · 2011-01-31 18:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Uh, IPv6 autoconfiguration?
And who renumbers? No one should be typing in IPs anywhere anymore. DHCPv6 and DNS and now you're done.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 18:59 · Score: 0

Dlink has got lots of IPv6 gear and linksys is not far behind. You won't be seeing much in the way of new gear that does not support IPv6.
You should ask/bug your CPE vendor -- it will do a lot more good than asking here on slashdot.
Docsis 3 modems support IPv6 out of the box.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 19:15 · Score: 0

But beware chiseler ISPs that use custom firmware that cripples them.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-01-31 21:36 · Score: 2

With the number of IPv6 numbers available, there is no long ANY excuse for ISP's to be rotating your IP anymore. They should be able to give you a subnet and let you *have* it.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by EsbenMoseHansen · 2011-01-31 22:55 · Score: 1

Actually, DHCPv6 is not going to be deployed by many, as I understand. I've set up IPv6 at home through a tunnel (really easy, at least for linux), and it uses a DCMP (I think is called) protocol to broadcast the prefix, and some magic to avoid clashes. It's nice & simple, compared to DHCP. I just use the MAC address as the postfix -- that means I can add the resultant address to my DNS, and access all my machines individually at home. Sweet! Much, much better than port forwarding.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by gmack · 2011-01-31 23:21 · Score: 1

The oversight with that setup is that IPv6 has no mechanism to advertize the location of the nameservers.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Chang · 2011-02-01 00:04 · Score: 1

While it's not universally implemented, RA does work in many cases to advertise DNS resolvers to clients. Adoption of this is certainly going to increase because it is so unbelievably sweet in operation.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-01 00:26 · Score: 1

That's what anycast is for. Or mDNS-SD.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Kryos · 2011-02-01 00:29 · Score: 1

What about a simple IPv6 router that works just like our IPv4 home gateway NAT routers today?
You've missed the point. With IPv6, you don't need NAT. NAT is a response to the limited address space available with IPv4.

--
Now everybody's equal, just don't measure it. -Bad Religion
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by EsbenMoseHansen · 2011-02-01 00:31 · Score: 1

Say what? Of course my setup finds the location of the nameservers. Otherwise it would be rather useless, no? I can't remember how it works exactly, though.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Miamicanes · 2011-02-01 01:47 · Score: 1

> You've missed the point. With IPv6, you don't need NAT. NAT is a response to the limited address space available with IPv4.
Maybe. But the response is part of the problem, too. If the forces behind IPv6 were more willing to humor the unwashed masses and let them have something that was drop-in, plug and play compatible with ipv4 (putting forth a public ipv6 face, while maintaining a private ip4v network and transparently working in the background to make everything beyond the router look like it always has), there would probably be less resistance. Then, users could discover on their own, at their own rate, that they don't have to jump through hoops anymore, and go native.
Example:
suppose your ISP assigns 2001:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:: to you. Your home network currently uses 192.168.100.x, with some fixed addresses (router=192.168.100.1, desktop pc = 192.168.100.2, DHCP block from 192.168.100.101-192.168.100.199).
drop in a hypothetical router and give it IPv6 address 2001:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:192:168:100:1 (yeah, an egregious abuse of address space for the sake of human-readability and change-resistance, but humor me). On the LAN side, the router pretends to be a typical ipv4 home router. It assigns ipv4 addresses in the private range as usual. With a twist. Anything coming from your desktop PC automagically gets rewritten to appear as if it were coming from 2001:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:192:168:100:2. Anything inbound addressed to 2001:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:192:168:100:2 gets rewritten and forwarded to 192.168.100.2 on the inside. By default, all your network traffic from the house gets collapsed onto 2001:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:192:168:100:1 (because all the PCs on the inside are still routing it through 192.168.100.1 as the default gateway). Traffic to and from ipv4 hosts works like NAT'ed traffic always has.
Yes, it's unnecessary. But it enables end users to defer having to deal with ipv6 directly until they have a personal, compelling reason to specifically care about it. Think of it like training wheels for a kid's bike. Eventually they get in the way and are voluntarily removed, but in the meantime they enable kids to safely start enjoying bikes at a much younger age.
(I know that what Comcast is doing is something along these lines, but I have yet to see anything take it a step further and implement transparent deterministic automapping between ipv6 and sort-of-NAT'ed-private-ipv4-addresses).
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by zach_the_lizard · 2011-02-01 02:04 · Score: 1

See RFC 5006 for NDP's DNS options.

--
SSC
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by zach_the_lizard · 2011-02-01 02:07 · Score: 1

If you consider hexadecimal numbers to be "cryptic strings," I think it's time to look for work in a different field.

--
SSC
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by zach_the_lizard · 2011-02-01 02:15 · Score: 1

If your end users have to deal with IP addresses themselves (either v6 or v4), you've got more problems than whether or not they "understand" something like 2001:....:192.168.100.1. End users don't understand these addresses at all. They're mystical codes that are scary. Who knows what could happen when you type that in? Sure, there are more advanced users who aren't scared, but those aren't the great, unwashed masses. Those are your geeks, and they will learn v6 one way or another.
Also, your idea has been taken already and implemented. ::ffff:a.b.c.d. See RFC 2765.

--
SSC
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 04:23 · Score: 0

Anyone seen any consumer routers that do local DNS? All the ones I see do DHCP, but then refuse to advertise those assigned IPs to other computers on the local network. So if I want to connect to another local machine (with something other than SMB), I have to look up the IP address.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-02-01 04:56 · Score: 1

In the US NAT was/is a response to consumers that want to host content. It will be interesting to see how Crapcast (presently testing IPv6 on elected customers) and their kin will address this given the absence of an excuse for not issuing a static IP.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:where are IPV6 routers and modems?? by Miamicanes · 2011-02-01 07:55 · Score: 1

RFC 2765 deals with mapping public IPv4 addresses into the IPv6 address space. My example maps private IPv4 addresses into the lower 64 bits of IPv6, and encodes the forwarding info into the IPv6 address itself in a deterministic, but completely adhoc, manner.
I'm used to getting it criticized. Yes, I know ::192:168:100:101 really represents a 64-bit binary value that has nothing to do with the four bytes having 192, 168, 100, and 101 as their respective values. The point is, it's human-readable, and the behind-the-scenes math to make it work is utterly trivial for the router itself to handle for the sake of making the life of whomever has to configure it more convenient.
Likewise, I know it stomps on the official scheme cooked up by IETF for assigning the lower 64 bits based on MAC address... and counter that it doesn't really matter, because what happens on the end user's side of the cable modem is ultimately his own business, and the business of nobody else. If I have a single desktop PC and feel like making its ipv6 address 2001:aaaa:bbbb:cccc::1, it might offend someone who takes issue with it not following the official rules... but at the end of the day, all that matters is that nothing else on my side of the cable modem is using ::1 at the same time.
It also has the benefit of making ipv6 addresses look a lot less scary to the crowd who's going to be the second group to implement it at home... Slashdot users. Mention ipv6 among any group of technically-savvy users, and what's the first thing everyone bitches about? IP addresses that are impossible for humans to remember. But if you take the upper 64 bits as they're assigned, and assign the lower 64 bits in a way that DOES make sense to non-autistic humans, it doesn't look nearly as bad. Everyone can remember a few ipv4 addresses, including the fixed one that costs $5-10/month extra and is shared by everything at the house. Likewise, most people can remember the private IP addresses used at home, because the user got to pick a range that made personal sense, and assigned specific addresses in a way that's meaningful and memorable to the individual. Turn a.b.c.d -> 10.0.0.x into aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:10:0:0:x, and the big, bad 128-bit address doesn't look nearly as scary anymore. It might not be "authentic" in a strict binary sense, but if it gets 4 times as many Slashdot users to upgrade to ipv6 next year as would have otherwise done it, those users will influence more Slashdot users, who'll influence less-technical users, who'll ultimately end up configuring their parents' new router on Christmas.
At the end of the day, the biggest single obstacle to IPv6 adoption is resistance by just about everyone at the top of the IT Hierarchy who's not personally involved with IETF. When you have something that scares the bejesus out of people who administer networks, write enterprise software, and design military robots (or at least causes excessive frustration and dread), its likelihood of adoption by anyone lower on the food chain is nonexistent. Grandma isn't going to tweet about upgrading her home network to IPv6 and ask when we're going to do our own. Before anyone's going to succeed at selling IPv6 to the unwashed masses, they've got to sell it to the tech elite.

multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff! by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-01-31 16:08 · Score: 1

multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff!

Re:multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff! by bn557 · 2011-01-31 16:57 · Score: 2

multi level NAT will brake alot of stuff!
Consumer ISPs will just charge you an extra 2.99 per device to have a true router (behind their nat) so they can sell 8000 people 192.168.0.2, etc, etc.

--
Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable

Ok...this really sucks! by NoExQQ · 2011-01-31 16:14 · Score: 2

Damn it! I just figured out how to subnet without a calculator and now this!!

Re:Ok...this really sucks! by marka63 · 2011-01-31 23:08 · Score: 1

You won't need a calculator with IPv6. Your subnets will all be /64 in size and you will have a 16 (/60), 256 (/56) or 65536 (/48) subnets depending upon the prefix size the ISP delegates. All nice and simple. If you don't want to work in hex just use 0-9 and you have 10, 100, and 10000 subnets to play with. Yes your ISP is allocated space on the assumption that they will hand out /48s.
Re:Ok...this really sucks! by Megane · 2011-02-01 01:12 · Score: 1

Of course 48 of that 64 is going to be your MAC address by default (or maybe all 64 bits for an EUI-64), leading to "Anyone can see your computer's intarnets address!" web ads, and web ads that will be able to target users of Apple equipment because Apple uses its own MAC addresses on its network ports.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Ok...this really sucks! by marka63 · 2011-02-01 01:49 · Score: 1

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3041.html
Re:Ok...this really sucks! by Megane · 2011-02-01 03:59 · Score: 1

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't look like something that will actually get implemented as any form of default, mostly because not enough people will care. Section 4 also mentions some problems that it could cause. So I still expect to see ads targeted by MAC (or "Mac"!) address. But even then, OS X users will still see "YOUR COMPUTER HAS A VIRUS" ads with a fake Windows 7 look. (and Windows 9 will probably be the current version then)

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Ok...this really sucks! by marka63 · 2011-02-01 08:48 · Score: 1

Given it is turned on by default on some platforms I think it will be implemented. :-)

Why can't we go after legacy space? by Artifex · 2011-01-31 16:14 · Score: 1

I can't undertand why we can't ask legacy holders to give some accounting for their space usage. Take the US Postal Service, for example. Give each of the estimated 43,000 ZIP codes out there its own IP address, and that won't even fill a /16. And yet they have 56/8? Surely they don't need that much. Is there language in these old distributions that prevents the possibility of them being audited and revoked? And even if we don't go after mismanaged /8 space, registries certainly have an obligation to go after "portable space" assigned to companies which are now defunct or whose IP space has otherwise gone unused and even unannounced for a significant period of time.

--
Get off my launchpad!

Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by seifried · 2011-01-31 16:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

For every /8 you manage to claw back (incurring ridiculous costs to the holders of it, meaning it won't happen, they'd sooner take IANA/ARIN/etc. to court and drag it out I suspect) you gain.. wait for it... a total of 1 month. It's just not worth it. And then what.. start clawing back class B's? Better to move to IPv6 and just fix it for once and all. Plus we still have the 6to4, 4to6 and whatnot to deal with for a few decades.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Cimexus · 2011-01-31 16:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

We can ask them to do that. In fact some organisations that initially had very large (/8) allocations have already given some of their pool back. However, the growth of the internet is consuming a /8 worth of IPs every 4-6 weeks, at present. So even if all organisations with a /8 gave it back, it'd give us maybe a year's extra time, if that.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by rdebath · 2011-01-31 18:55 · Score: 2

At the current burn rate it's actually less than half a month per /8 ...
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Greyfox · 2011-01-31 19:03 · Score: 1

IBM owns nine-dot. That's a class A, bitches, 16M IP addresses for their 250K-some-odd users. They don't even use nine-dot for their external web presence. They can't give it back though, since they don't know exactly where 9.1.1.2 is, and the entire company will collapse if that computer goes offline. True story bro!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by jeremyp · 2011-01-31 20:19 · Score: 2

It's under my desk.
Damn, I just accidentally kicked the power cable out.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by RogerWilco · 2011-01-31 20:43 · Score: 1

I've seen this happen at two different employers. It must be commonplace for shops that have old unix boxes from a bygone era still tucked into corners here and there.
You only notice how many people are still using it when it indeed goes offline by accident.

--
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 20:48 · Score: 0

330K users, many of whom are responsible for many machines, many of which run many VMs.
It's not all open to the public though, it's true, there are also many, many firewalls.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Mark+Hood · 2011-01-31 21:37 · Score: 1

It wouldn't buy us long, to be honest.
And if I had a huge network using a lot of 'real' IPv4 addresses, and was asked to hand them back, it'd cost me a lot to re-tool my network to use NAT, or consolidate subnets, or whatever I had to do to free up IPs. Now you can argue that I might need to do that anyway to roll out IPv6 (which is debatable) or that I should have planned better in the beginning (which is probably true, although likely I'm not the guy who did it, just the guy who maintains the legacy mess) but you can be damn sure that if it's going to cost time & money, my management won't just say 'sure, let's be decent netizens and hand it back, screw the cost' - they're going to ask you to pay for the transition.
Better to keep hyping the running out of addresses and get IPv6 moving at last. It solves other problems too, after all.

--
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Askmum · 2011-01-31 23:20 · Score: 1

Yeah. And Xerox has 13/8. HP owns 15/8 and 16/8 (because DEC -> Digital -> Compaq -> HP). There are a number of companies owning a class A block. But what does it solve to give some back? A few month's reprieve and we're in the same position.
That's a part of internet history. Not in the least: I want my company to be the holder of one of the first assigned /8 address spaces.

We need IPv6 to continue. Whatever you do now on IPv4 is only a patch and will not solve anything.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by davew · 2011-01-31 23:55 · Score: 1

I did some calculations a while back, extending the growth curve beyond 256 /8s, to see what the run rate would be like. If we give back ALL THE ADDRESSES currently allocated - including yours, mine and Slashdot's - it gets us to about 2019. That's two whole internets worth of addresses.
I mean, if we really needed to buy a bit more time to do a transition, then maybe it'd be worth going through all that trouble. But we've had longer than that to prepare already with this deadline very clearly looming. I don't see how extending it a bit would change the end result.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Artifex · 2011-02-01 01:07 · Score: 1

All of the replies I've read to this seem to be assuming I'm arguing against a speedy IPv6 rollout or something. I wonder why?

--
Get off my launchpad!
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Megane · 2011-02-01 01:18 · Score: 1

As others have said, because it won't last much more than a month per /8.
The real blame is on cell phone networks, especially in Asia (notice that APNIC requested two blocks?) that assign an IPv4 for every freaking phone out there, when a private network would work just as well. This gobbles up addresses like nothing else.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 01:57 · Score: 1

Because it would cost more to reallocate those underused /8s than to roll out IPv6 to the same number of users.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by wertigon · 2011-02-01 06:20 · Score: 1

It's a common myth that NAT scales indefinitely, while in reality you start to slam into performance bottlenecks at around 40-50 concurrent users.
Private networks isn't the answer. IPv6 is. And the sooner we migrate, the better.

--
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by tachyonflow · 2011-02-01 06:33 · Score: 1

Personally, I don't think it would matter much. Networks have had 15 years to roll out IPv6. A few more months will just buy us a few months of additional procrastination, and then we'll be back in the same situation. I think it's better to go ahead and get it over with.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 06:35 · Score: 1

It's a common myth that NAT scales indefinitely, while in reality you start to slam into performance bottlenecks at around 40-50 concurrent users.
Yes. Then you get into crawling horrors such as multi-level NAT and aplication-level gateways.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by Kalriath · 2011-02-01 09:51 · Score: 1

Like the time Microsoft knocked shell.windows.com offline by turning off an ex-developer's workstation.
Actually true story.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by 5KVGhost · 2011-02-02 02:54 · Score: 1

"Is there language in these old distributions that prevents the possibility of them being audited and revoked?"
There's no need to resort to punative action against holders who've done nothing wrong. Current allocation policies strip IPv4 addresses of all market value, so right now there's every reason for the current holders to keep them and no reason not to. If you want them to be redistributed more efficiently simply let holders of unusued blocks of IPv4 addresses sell them to people who want them.
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by WhiteDragon · 2011-02-02 05:08 · Score: 1

GE is the same way. They have a /8 but www.ge.com is not in that block. Interestingly enough, www.usps.gov is in their /8 range, but www.usps.com is not.

--
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
Re:Why can't we go after legacy space? by badkarmadayaccount · 2011-02-02 08:15 · Score: 1

Is just me that finds something perversely attractive in multi-layer NATs, and getting around them in a protocol agnostic manner?

--
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.

240/4 subnets by dhammabum · 2011-01-31 16:16 · Score: 2

I note that IANA has classified 240/8 - 255/8 (well 254/8 really - 255 is for broadcasts) as reserved for future use. Is not the future now?

--
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.

Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 16:23 · Score: 0

255/8 is not for broadcasts. Not everything is a class C, 255 is not a "magic number". Please read an elementary guide to IP subnetting.
Re:240/4 subnets by ravenspear · 2011-01-31 16:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is a lot of legacy IPv4 software in networking components will not route packets going to those addresses, since they were designated as future use a long time ago.
Since that software would have to be updated, it might as well just be updated to IPv6.
Re:240/4 subnets by KiloByte · 2011-01-31 16:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Except that a good deal of devices refuse to route anything to such addresses, making them effectively useless. Having to reflash every router (including "consumer" ones) and fix every broken config would be harder than just migrating to IPv6. Strictly speaking, easier to amend but with breakages harder to spot.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:240/4 subnets by ZorinLynx · 2011-01-31 16:35 · Score: 1

Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?
The firmware developers should have expected the "future" would come eventually right?
Re:240/4 subnets by halcyon1234 · 2011-01-31 16:40 · Score: 1

Is not the future now?
No. Not ever. By definition.
Buy an IPv6 router. Or a time machine. Or an IPv6 time machine.

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Re:240/4 subnets by gstrickler · 2011-01-31 16:41 · Score: 1

I fail to see how some users not being able to reach them on v4 due to outdated routers is worse than far more users not being able to reach them because they have only a v6 address. Clearly v6 support to the end node is still very limited. Make the previously reserved v4 addresses available.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:240/4 subnets by ravenspear · 2011-01-31 16:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sure, and it was also stupid to only use 32 bits for the address.
A lot of dumb decisions were made in the early days of the internet when they didn't know how far reaching those decisions would turn out to be or the problems they would eventually cause.
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 16:43 · Score: 0

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02
Re:240/4 subnets by gargleblast · 2011-01-31 16:48 · Score: 1

That would buy us 1 or 2 years. The future is a bit longer than that.
Re:240/4 subnets by ravenspear · 2011-01-31 16:53 · Score: 1

Well for one, support would be a nightmare.
With a v6 address, you can gauge connectivity with a simple question, does your software/hardware support IPv6?
With a semi-reachable v4 address, it would be "does your hardware AND any routers or gateway servers in between your box and the intended destination show up on this huge list of incompatible hardware?".
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 17:01 · Score: 0

Most OSes will drop packets from these reserved ranges. So yes, you fail to see how patching ALL the infrastructure in an obsolete protocol is somewhat more difficult than simply turning on IPv6 - something that is already supported by most OSes.
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 17:14 · Score: 0

Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?
Yes, extremely.

Sure, and it was also stupid to only use 32 bits for the address.
That's not even the same thing.
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 17:22 · Score: 1

A lot of dumb decisions were made in the early days of the internet when they didn't know how far reaching those decisions would turn out to be or the problems they would eventually cause.
Oddly, I was thinking how the same applies to the US Constitution.
Which was implemented just a few years after the Articles of Confederation.
Re:240/4 subnets by gstrickler · 2011-01-31 17:29 · Score: 1

If their HW/SW (and their ISP, etc.) supports v6, they'll just connect using v6. However, if their HW/SW doesn't support v6, and there is a formerly reserved v4 address, they can at least attempt the connection (i.e. no v6, potential v4 connection). Without that, they can't get to the destination until they upgrade their HW/SW and verify their ISP provides v6 connectivity (i.e. no v6, no connection)
Support is no harder because you try v6 first. If that fails, they try v4 knowing that some devices won't be able to connect. If the users wants to go through the process of checking a "huge list of incompatible equipment", they can, if not, well, they're no worse off than they will be by assigning v6 addresses after the current v4s run out.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:240/4 subnets by ravenspear · 2011-01-31 17:44 · Score: 2

Support is no harder because you try v6 first.
But it will be. Try explaining to your customers why some people have a fully routable v4 assignment, but yours is hopelessly crippled and will only enjoy spotty connectivity. There isn't enough information about IPv6 in the general marketplace already, there is virtually none about this alternate range of v4 addresses that could potentially work for some people but not others.
Besides, any of those IPv4 bandaid type solutions just delay the impetus to move to IPv6. If you are going to make people check and patch their equipment to support future use addresses, you are going to take away resources that could be focused on moving to v6.
Dual stack will allow people to connect to those who can only get a new v6 address (i.e. a v4 peer will be able to connect to a v6 socket). That is a better solution than making the IPv4 situation even more broken than it already is.
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 17:47 · Score: 0

Or an IPv6 time machine.
Because 128 bits "outta be enough for any" era! :)
Re:240/4 subnets by RazzleDazzle · 2011-01-31 17:53 · Score: 1

Uhhh... we dont use Class C or any "Class" blocks at all anymore. Try /24 or some other equivalent notation.

--
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Re:240/4 subnets by RazzleDazzle · 2011-01-31 18:02 · Score: 1

Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?
The firmware developers should have expected the "future" would come eventually right?
How should developers have designed the use of that address space? Unicast? Multicast? Anycast? Some-as-yet-unknown-cast? Kind of hard to program that in and for what benefit? Zero return really and one might argue for a net loss as some vendors may have designed its use one way and others may have done something altogether different and incompatible with the first. Then what? Not it's totally screwed up. Not to mention if it's not used but enabled for years and years I bet there would be bugs galore since it would be basically never used by any sizable amount of people. This would only marginally extend the exhaustion time in any case. Would have been better to go with IPv6 as soon as it became official.

--
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Re:240/4 subnets by Kjella · 2011-01-31 18:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except they were not stupid and they were not dumb. You look at your megabytes and gigabytes of RAM and think of course that's stupid. But a current era machine would be something like the Apple II with 4 kB - 4096 bytes - of RAM, where it really, really matter if an IP address takes up 4 bytes or 8 bytes. Or if you use 2 or 4 digits to store the year. By the time TCP/IP became official, cutting edge machines like the IBM PC and Spectrum Z80 had 16 kB.
You must remember that TCP/IP was designed only around the time people started to imagine the possibility of a personal computer, and even then it was for the few and rich. That we'd all get together in one big network was even further out, I used to dial BBS for many years before I got on the Internet, even though it already existed as such.
Even today when there's far more people and people are much richer than 30 years ago there's only about 2 billion people on the Internet, even if you assumed a PC for everyone we'd still be good for another while. But I have a PC at home and at work and in my pocket and it all adds up. But who had that crystal ball in the late 70s/early 80s and what if they did?
Sure, you could have just picked some impossibly huge number that'd obviously be enough for everything. But it would have had a huge and immediate impact on memory consumption and cost there and then. We're not talking about short sighted businessmen that only care about the next quarter here. We're talking about things that could only be a problem decades down the road if this becomes a megahit. Sure it's shitty for us, but that's not their fault. Particularly when people have been waving the warning flags for years and everybody's happily ignored it until we hit the brick wall.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:240/4 subnets by rdebath · 2011-01-31 19:06 · Score: 1

You run MS windows right ?
You will not connect to anything in the 240.0 to 255.0 address range, windows will error. Windows isn't the only one.
Plus at the current burn rate 16 /8s will last just seven months...
Some of the mobile operators are getting close to the stage where they need an entire IPv4 internet just for their devices and there are already more devices connected to the internet than there are addresses.
Re:240/4 subnets by xenobyte · 2011-01-31 19:37 · Score: 1

Actually class C networks are very common indeed, probably because it's such a handy size. But you're as so far as the term shouldn't be used. Call it /24 instead. CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) is the new way.
The original poster probably confuses the 'standard' of using a.b.c.255 as the broadcast address in the old class C networks with 255/8, maybe because the subnet mask usually is 255..
No, 255 is not a magic number, except it's 11111111 in binary and thus the largest possible 8-bit number. As the four segments of an IPv4 address are 8-bit numbers, it does have some relevance... ;)

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:240/4 subnets by kinko · 2011-01-31 20:42 · Score: 1

> Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?
they were reserved for multicast, back when everyone thought TV/movies would be distributed through the web. Multicast (1 server stream sending to lots of clients) never really took off though....
It's not so much a "refusal to route" to them as they are handled specially, and aren't designed to be routed as normal. Lots of home routers (eg my WRT54) will occasionally send out multicast broadcast packets onto the LAN, which you can see with a network capture tool.
Re:240/4 subnets by gstrickler · 2011-01-31 21:18 · Score: 1

Besides, any of those IPv4 bandaid type solutions just delay the impetus to move to IPv6. If you are going to make people check and patch their equipment to support future use addresses, you are going to take away resources that could be focused on moving to v6.
Dual stack will allow people to connect to those who can only get a new v6 address (i.e. a v4 peer will be able to connect to a v6 socket). That is a better solution than making the IPv4 situation even more broken than it already is.
Your approach breaks connectivity for more people, but it doesn't reduce support in the slightest. My approach is based upon a dual stack model, and it reduces the problems for the end user, and doesn't delay the implementation of full v6 capabilities at all because v6 is the preferred protocol, as specified in the RFCs. v4 is used as a fallback when v6 isn't available.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:240/4 subnets by h00manist · 2011-01-31 21:32 · Score: 1

Hindsight always has 20/20 vision. It's terribly true.

--
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Re:240/4 subnets by Vectormatic · 2011-01-31 22:16 · Score: 1

that explains the 32 bit IPs, but it doesnt explain the extra 14 /8s which are reserved for "future use"
seriously, who the hell would put that in his firmware? it takes up extra space and limits functionality..

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:240/4 subnets by vidnet · 2011-01-31 22:17 · Score: 1

Sure, you could have just picked some impossibly huge number that'd obviously be enough for everything.
In a way, that's exactly what they did. They picked a number so ridiculously large that you could almost give every person on the planet their own address!
You could have given every single school and library in the country not only their own computer, but a whole computer lab! You never know; some time in the future, many if not all universities may offer computer classes. For future proofing, we'll go one step further and say that every one of them also want to be connected to the internet. And just to make it even more ludicrous: we'll do the same for all high schools _and_ primary schools!
You could have given every computer in the world its own subnet! That's every single computer, not just the ones that could reasonably be expected to find uses for a network connection.
You could have done all of the above, and you're still on the class C networks! You still have the even larger class B and A networks left!
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 23:17 · Score: 0

Have you looked at the class D network, just below them? That's multicast
If you don't know what a group of addresses is for, you can't do anything meaningful with it. The class E network range was reserved not in case we ran out of unicast addresses, but in case someone thought of something completely different which would need addresses. They haven't (or rather, no-one has come up with a compelling case, there are suggestions) so it remains unused.
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 23:29 · Score: 1

Isn't it a bit idiotic to hard code refusal to route addresses reserved for "future use"?
Not really. The problem is that you've NO idea what those addresses represent. If they're internal, like the 127/24 or 192.168/16 addresses, then having them routed by default is a bad thing. If they're "special" at a bit level, in that those bits trigger some completely different interpretation (i.e.: next bytes are the remainder of a 128-bit address), then trying to route them AT ALL could be a very bad thing indeed.
Re:240/4 subnets by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-01-31 23:38 · Score: 1

From the rough calculations I've done, IPv4 is enough IP's for about 1.5 addresses per person. Now most people in the world do not have internet, but those that do usually have a computer, a smartphone, a work computer, maybe a laptop, a home router, etc. IPv6 on the other hand is about enough IP's for every person in the world to have an IP for every CELL IN THEIR BODY! If that's not enough IP's to last us another couple millennium, the earth is going to get pretty crowded...
Re:240/4 subnets by marka63 · 2011-01-31 23:43 · Score: 1

Firstly there are too many machines that won't route them for them to useful as general purpose addresses. That said one could use restricted environments like between the CPE and the LSN or 6RD border router provide there was a way for the CPE to signal that it supports unicast in class E (DHCP option) and the ISP was sure that all the intermediate boxes supported unicast class E then it would be allocated. It would give ISP's 15 /8's to talk to their customers over. Any customer that needs a public IPv4 address would get something other than a unicast class E.
The only real question is "Can the ASIC's in the intermediate routers handle this?" If so you get fast path + IPv6 (using 6rd) with older routers.
As the ISP upgrades their infrastructure they move to IPv6 native and continue with LSN or move to DS-Lite or NAT64/DNS64 to provide access to the legacy IPv4 network.
Re:240/4 subnets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 00:03 · Score: 0

BAH, there is no such thing as the future, just the now.
Profits profits profits and all that jazz.
Barely anyone cares for future proofing specs these days.
They just say "future use", then someone developing from it ends up locking it out entirely. (so they buy new hardware, like that will happen)
Re:240/4 subnets by Eunuchswear · 2011-02-01 00:35 · Score: 1

they were reserved for multicast, back when everyone thought TV/movies would be distributed through the web. Multicast (1 server stream sending to lots of clients) never really took off though....
Tell that to the millions of people getting TV over ADSL.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:240/4 subnets by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-01 00:45 · Score: 1

From the rough calculations I've done, IPv4 is enough IP's for about 1.5 addresses per person
Not sure where you get that from. There are around 4 billion IPv4 addresses and around 6 billion people. This means about 1.5 people per IP, in theory. It's actually a lot worse than that, because you typically need to reserve two IPs per subnet (broadcast and router) and you can't easily route anything smaller than a /24,which means that the number of usable IPs is significantly lower, closer to one IP per 2-3 people. This, in a world where many people own half a dozen Internet-enabled devices.

IPv6 on the other hand is about enough IP's for every person in the world to have an IP for every CELL IN THEIR BODY!
In theory, at least. In practice, it's quite a lot less, because IPv6 addresses are intended to be allocated relatively sparsely to make routing easier.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:240/4 subnets by atheos · 2011-02-01 01:45 · Score: 1

about as idiotic as it was to use 2 digit date codes.
Re:240/4 subnets by dissy · 2011-02-01 03:19 · Score: 1

that explains the 32 bit IPs, but it doesnt explain the extra 14 /8s which are reserved for "future use"
The explanation is because now the first four bits of an IP address dictate what type and class of address it is, but back then only the first three bits were defined this way.
The first bit being zero means class A, the first bit one but second bit zero is class B. One One Zero is C, and so on.
Once you get to the first three bits being ones, you are in either the class D or E blocks depending on that 4th bit, E being the block we are talking about here.
Class D is multicast, not anycast. You can not assign or use a multicast address as a source IP.
At the time the 4th bit was not defined like this, only the first three.
111X was one big block (D and E combined) of which the lower half was defined as multicast.
It would be exceptionally stupid to make assumptions that later in time that block would be cut in half, and half of it would go back to anycast for no obvious reason.
So it is not that the E block is reserved for Future use, it was reserved for multicast use and a lot of old routers make just that assumption.
Since you can't use a multicast IP as a source address, they clearly can not be specified in the router or on your network. You simply send packets TO those addresses.
Even now, where class E could possibly be used this way, those old routers will not accept a reply from them, since you can not have a multicast IP as the source. If replies get dropped by half the Internets hardware, they won't do much good.
Check out RFC 1375 if you are interested in how the first few bits of an address define its type and class.
Re:240/4 subnets by NoOneInParticular · 2011-02-01 08:22 · Score: 1

How much less is quite a lot less. Is it a mere 127 bits, 126, maybe only 100 bits? given 6 * 10^9 people and 10^12 cells per person, we just need 70 bits to be addressable to cover all cells.
Re:240/4 subnets by ravenspear · 2011-02-01 08:42 · Score: 1

I wasn't saying the people were dumb, just that the decision was short-sighted. Cerf has said so himself and he was basically the one who made that decision.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/245989,cerf-ipv6-crisis-is-imminent.aspx

Cerf, one of the key designers of the Internet's architecture, predicted that the long-anticipated exhaustion of the 32-bit address space available in the currently used IPv4 system was imminent.
"We're almost out of IPv4 address space. I'm a little embarrassed about that, because I'm the guy who decided 32-bit was enough. My only defence is that choice was made in 1977. I thought it was an experiment," he told attendees.
Re:240/4 subnets by ravenspear · 2011-02-01 08:50 · Score: 1

v6 has been the preferred solution in the RFCs for 10+ years. That hasn't resulted in it's adoption, because NAT and other bandaid solutions came along.
And future use addresses do not reduce the problem for end users, they make them more complex because the behavior is unpredictable and poorly documented, they are much more likely to know whether their equipment and network support IPv6 than what the internal firmware or operating system software in their network devices looks like wrt future use addresses.
Re:240/4 subnets by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-01 11:44 · Score: 1

Typically, you'll be assigned a /48 or a /64, which means only 2^48 or 2^64 networks (which can be as small as a single computer, or as large as a university campus), so a lot less than 2^70. Of this 2^48, to do hierarchical routing, you probably only want to allocate something like 10% of the addresses, meaning that you're closer to 2^45 or so. Still a lot, but not quite the massive numbers that journalists like to quote.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:240/4 subnets by gstrickler · 2011-02-01 15:43 · Score: 1

And you keep ignoring that if their equipment supports v6, then having a v4 address (even if it was formerly reserved) does not cause a problem. They simply connect using v6. The v4 address is only for people who don't have v4 capability (either in their equip, or from their ISP). You can continue to ignore that fact, but it won't make you correct.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:240/4 subnets by ravenspear · 2011-02-02 12:59 · Score: 1

And you keep ignoring the fact that the v4 address probably won't work for a good majority of their clients so it doesn't really help, it would be sort of like having a flapping server.
Re:240/4 subnets by 0x537461746943 · 2011-02-03 03:15 · Score: 1

Do you seriously think that updating router firmware, firewalls, etc would be harder than migrating to IPv6? IPv6 transition would be much more difficult. Devices have to support IPv6 for them to work. Fixing routing just needs a relatively simple change on the router/firewall.

They should be able to get some from Egypt by TechyImmigrant · 2011-01-31 16:37 · Score: 0

Why not pull a few spare addresses from Egypt? They don't appear to be using them.

--
Evil people are out to get you.

Re:They should be able to get some from Egypt by satuon · 2011-01-31 20:28 · Score: 1

Mubarak: "Fellow Egyptians, I just donated all our IP addresses."

So when is Randall Munroe.. by Chuq · 2011-01-31 16:40 · Score: 1

Going to update http://xkcd.com/195/ ?

--
- Chuq

Re:So when is Randall Munroe.. by rdebath · 2011-01-31 19:48 · Score: 1

He won't, it won't look original any more.
But you can do it. Here's the source data.
Re:So when is Randall Munroe.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 21:09 · Score: 0

I did just that, with a map generated from that data plus assignment statistics:
http://kotzan.net
There's lots of extra info in the imagemap.
Re:So when is Randall Munroe.. by dsrg · 2011-02-01 02:00 · Score: 1

Well, IPv6 is already covered in the mouseover-text.

--
"Bees!" - Eddie Izzard

Try DD-WRT by Crazy+Taco · 2011-01-31 17:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

where are IPV6 routers and modems??

Everywhere. Pretty much all good routers are IPv6 capable, just not out of the box (unfortunately). You have to do things like put the DD-WRT open source firmware on them. On the plus side though, if you do that you don't just get IPv6, you additionally pretty much turn your home router into an enterprise router.

Note that some companies like Buffalo are starting to ship their routers with DD-WRT on them by default, so we are starting to see IPv6 enabled routers out of the box. As for the other companies, they are probably holding off in the hopes that people are forced to buy more routers from them in the future, rather than running what they currently have. Once the public becomes aware that IPv6 is a desirable feature, then they will start selling them.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.

Re:Try DD-WRT by zach_the_lizard · 2011-02-01 02:20 · Score: 1

I should caution that some builds of DD-WRT do not support IPv6. My own build didn't have it; you have to have v24sp1 stable or above. Version 24 sp2 Mega builds have IPv6 too.

--
SSC

Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 17:02 · Score: 0

Well my backwater swamp is already Dual Stack, and it's been that way since my ISP start testing IPv6 - being my point because it allows me to do SFA more, it WILL allow me to do SFA in the near future, and will only START doing something in the distant future when everyone has to move over to 6...

So, like I said, save your QQ until it's actually about something, because the time for panic isn't now.

Repeat by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 17:04 · Score: 1

This is a repeat from the last ten years, every year.

More will be allocated from some unallocated/untouched block, we'll forget about it for a while, and panic next year when this shitstorm starts again.

Just push v6 already, for fuck's sake, I'm sick of this panicky shit.

Re:Repeat by FoolishOwl · 2011-01-31 20:07 · Score: 2

There are no more unallocated blocks. That's the point.

An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... by c0lo · 2011-01-31 17:28 · Score: 5, Funny

"A strong CIDR please, I'm exhausted"

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... by vlueboy · 2011-01-31 17:58 · Score: 1

A good laugh... :)
Mod parent up, please!
10 years ago, this would already be up thru the clouds. What's happened?!
Re:An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 18:00 · Score: 0

Why only mod this a 2?!?!?!??? Should be a 5 this is fracken brilliant! :)
Re:An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 19:38 · Score: 0

"A strong CIDR please, I'm exhausted"
How long have you waited to post this?
(captcha word: creation. Sometimes Slashdot seems to understand....)
Re:An IPv4 address enters a bar and says... by satuon · 2011-01-31 20:45 · Score: 1

Probably not enough people who understand it. I for one had to look up Wikipedia on this :)

Re:Who Cares? by Lost+Race · 2011-01-31 17:31 · Score: 1

SFA? QQ? WTF?

I just talked to my ISP about this... by mark-t · 2011-01-31 18:11 · Score: 1

... and they told me, quite plainly, that they have absolutely no intention to start deploying IPv6 address blocks to customers until they run completely out of IPv4 addresses.

I was floored. "Until"??? That's like not bothering to buy toilet paper until you need to use the restroom *after* you've already run out.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by WeatherGod · 2011-01-31 18:20 · Score: 1

Which ISP please so I know who to avoid?
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by mark-t · 2011-01-31 18:27 · Score: 1

Shaw

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-01-31 19:21 · Score: 1

... and they told me, quite plainly, that they have absolutely no intention to start deploying IPv6 address blocks to customers until they run completely out of IPv4 addresses.
I was floored. "Until"??? That's like not bothering to buy toilet paper until you need to use the restroom *after* you've already run out.
That's probably reasonable. There are a number of ways to address IPv4/6 interoperability.

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by mikael_j · 2011-01-31 19:24 · Score: 1

That's about on-par with my experiences.
Previous ISP (TeliaSonera) told me that they gave out IPv6 blocks for free to business customers but refused to do so for residental customers except for their "tester" customers (and they didn't want more of those).
Switched to Bahnhof a while back and as great as they are they can't offer native IPv6 access where I live because the open citynet I get their connection through (city owns the last mile and the ISPs hook into the city's network for a small fee per subscriber) refuses to play ball. Apparently they'd love to offer all their customers IPv6 access but a lot of the citynets have no interest in changing their config files...
Not that the latter surprises me, I used to work for a similar citynet that had made a managerial decision that there was no demand for IPv6 and therefore they wouldn't let any ISPs offer that service (kind of silly from my POV as I spoke to reps from at least three ISPs that wanted to know why they couldn't offer their customers IPv6 access in that citynet).

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by mark-t · 2011-01-31 19:53 · Score: 1

Of course, but if they offered customers the option of IP6 address blocks to those who wanted it now, while the option still exists to also have an available IPv4 address to use as a backup, then customers could then have time to actually verify that their new IPv6 systems are working properly before finally releasing their IPv4 address completely.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by atheos · 2011-02-01 01:48 · Score: 1

They have their hands full right now implementing metered bandwidth
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 02:05 · Score: 1

They assume that none of their customers are able to verify anything or have ever heard of IPv6.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by digitalsushi · 2011-02-01 02:15 · Score: 2

no one answering the phone at an isp knows what their internal plans are.

--
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by mark-t · 2011-02-01 03:35 · Score: 1

That's why, when the guy who answered the phone could not answer my question about when the company would start deploying IPv6 blocks for residential customers, I asked if there was somebody available that would know. He put me on hold for about 3 or 4 minutes, and then came back with the reply I mentioned above.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by mark-t · 2011-02-01 03:43 · Score: 1

Well, when a customer calls in to ask about IPv6, it's a pretty safe bet that customer knows what IPv6 is. I woiuldn't expect them to start deploying IPv6 to customers who did *NOT* ask for them until they might need to, but it's a little annoying when they aren't even giving a person an option.
I'd try using an independant ipv6 broker to verify my ipv6 capabilities, but they all seem to assume that you'll still have a static ipv4 address that you are connecting from. I do not, so using that sort of service is problematic.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 04:19 · Score: 1

I'd try using an independant ipv6 broker to verify my ipv6 capabilities, but they all seem to assume that you'll still have a static ipv4 address that you are connecting from. I do not, so using that sort of service is problematic.
Hurricane Electric and SixXS tunnels work for me from a dynamic IPv4 address.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 04:26 · Score: 1

Well, when a customer calls in to ask about IPv6, it's a pretty safe bet that customer knows what IPv6 is.
But the ISP's executives who make the policy never hear about that call. They themselves barely comprehend the basics of networking and they certainly don't want their customers to worry their pretty little heads over anything technical. Besides, customers who ask about such things are troublemakers anyway. They'd just as soon we went away.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-02-01 04:56 · Score: 1

If you're on a dynamic v4 address, why would you care about what kind of address you have today? Presumably the ISP will start handing out v6 addresses when they're ready. Also presuming that their TOS doesn't permit you to host services on a service plan that is handing out dynamic addresses. Are we talking about some kind of residential or low-end business broadband connection? If so, I completely agree with your ISP.

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by digitalsushi · 2011-02-01 06:15 · Score: 1

No one really has a clear view of deployment right now. There's a chicken and egg issue between isps and cpe vendors. Each want the other to commit first.. mostly the huge contention point is that cpes dont readily support prefix delegation over dhcpv6, which is how you get your subnet for your side of the connection. we're starting to see it plenty in the open source stuff, and even a few vendors are tacking support for it into their consumer grade gear. it's coming. it'll be mainstream in 12 months to buy a router that supports everything needed to do dual stack. the end goal is dual stack lite, where you have native v6 and nat v4. we'll see that being used for at least another decade, is my guess -- legacy v4 devices have no need to disappear. and all the cool p2p network model stuff can continue on in v6 as it was pre-v4nat.
I probably shouldnt enumerate which support it since i dont know what's nda firmware or not, but i am sitting next to at least 3 routers i am pretty sure you could get at best buy on the way home that support prefix delegation. anyways, end of my rant... nested enough that i dont need to really be very informative :)

--
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by mark-t · 2011-02-01 09:37 · Score: 1

I don't right now... I will in the future.
Each residence gets two dynamic IP addresses from my ISP right now, and in my particular case, I use them both.
The problem, however, is that if my ISP waits until they run out of IP addresses completely before deploying IPv6, then they are going to take away that 2nd IP address that I use, or at the very least start hiking up the rates for me to have that 2nd IP address by what is not likely to be an insignificant amount.
That's why I'd like to try to transition my household to IPv6 now... *before* I'm essentially forced to surrender one of my household IP addresses.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-02-01 10:11 · Score: 1

You're saying depletion but actually talking about recapturing already-deployed addresses. Trying to recapture and reallocate address space is prohibitively expensive. I'm not sure what your ISP would hope to gain from that scenario.
I can't speak for your ISP but, assuming they like making money, they'll be ready to start handing out v6 addresses right around the same time they hand out their last remaining v4 addresses. I wouldn't be too concerned in your position.

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Re:I just talked to my ISP about this... by mark-t · 2011-02-02 16:57 · Score: 1

Hurricane Electric seems to expect that your ipv4 address will be alive 24/7, which does not sound like dynamic to me.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

I dont get why.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 18:11 · Score: 0

Hardware manufacturers start pushing IPV6 as a feature, touting "is YOUR isp ready for the new internet? call them today and let them know you are!"

within a year or so, more ISPs would become ipv6 ready

Not to mention it doesnt have to be a complete switchover, the internet can be mixed for a while.

Then again, it's taking people forever to switch to 64 bit. consumer 64 bit computers have been around for close to a decade, yet only now are we seeing the jump to 64 bit due to the need for more ram.

The problem is, the people who are pushing for ipv6 are pushing for an all or nothing approach, either everyone switches over or get left in the dust.

Mobile networks should push for it first, seeing as they have the best market to do it in, seeing as people keep cell phones for about 2 years, start making it mandatory for new devices to be ipv6 compliant (anything android should be) and start rolling out ipv6 addresses, with the ability to still see ipv4 content.

Seriously, the ISPs need a boot in the ass and need to realize that they have to spend some money on infrastructure rather than polish a turd, and that spending millions and even billions on litigation, strongarming, and lobbying could be better spent on improving their services instead of being greedy sociopaths.

Re:Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 18:15 · Score: 0

Shit Fucking All.
QQ=Crying

At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... by jk379 · 2011-01-31 18:20 · Score: 1

UBM just gave back the 45.0.0.0/8 block . It's not a small block and it's available, only 256 of these blocks exists and once you pull out the 0.0.0.0, 127.0.0.0/8, 255.255.255.255 and multi-cast blocks this return counts. What other blocks have been returned and aren't counted as free?

Edited: whois 45.0.0.1
NetRange: 45.0.0.0 - 45.1.255.255
CIDR: 45.0.0.0/15
NetName: SHOWNET
NetHandle: NET-45-0-0-0-1
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS.INTEROP.NET
RegDate: 1991-09-09
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-45-0-0-0-1
OrgName: Interop Show Network

Re:At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... by Cimexus · 2011-01-31 18:33 · Score: 1

That will give us an extra 4-6 weeks, at current rates of IPv4 growth. So handy, but by no means life-saving.
Re:At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... by rdebath · 2011-01-31 20:06 · Score: 1

So what?
That gives you two weeks and the current world burn rate. Just barely enough time for a committee to decide to scratch their collective asses.
What will probably happen to that block is that it'll stay in ARIN's pool and be reallocated to America/Canada. For just America I understand it might give you a month and a half or so.
Re:At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... by Dubu · 2011-01-31 20:12 · Score: 2

The block is returned to ARIN, not to IANA. ARIN will of course keep it and - I suppose very soon - re-delegate it. TFA talks about the exhaustion of blocks at IANA (though it wrongly names ARIN there). The RIRs like ARIN still have some blocks to distribute for the next months. IPv4 exhaustion is slowly tumbling downwards through the registries to the ISPs and then companies, webhosters, etc.
Re:At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... by Megane · 2011-02-01 01:31 · Score: 2

Actually, it might last a tad longer than that, since it was returned to ARIN, the North America registry. It's Asia that's been gobbling up most of the addresses lately. Notice in the summary how APNIC requested two blocks?

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:At least one more Class A /8 Block is free... by Cimexus · 2011-02-01 02:17 · Score: 1

Ah true. I keep forgetting the A in APNIC is Asia. It's physically based here in Australia so I tend to forget that. But needless to say, it's Asia (mainland China, mostly) gobbling them up, not really Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea (which have older, more established internet presences)...

Re:Who Cares? by sjames · 2011-01-31 18:29 · Score: 1

Try to get yourself a /24 and you'll see that there IS an effect. It used to be that if you asked for a /24 you got it with no further questions. The way it is now, I'm expecting them to start requiring the results of your last colonoscopy and your astrological chart.

The first effects of people being on dual stack will be to cap how expensive v4 addresses might get. If enough people are dual stack, there's not much chance to price gouge as they run out.

Besides that, you can't see the dancing kame on v4 :-)

Re:Who Cares? by grantek · 2011-01-31 18:34 · Score: 1

To answer that seriously: it's because high-speed routing is done by ASICs (custom-designed chips) that can't easily cope with an extensible/dynamic system. You could have something similar to the Unicode system where you can have an infinite-sized address, but you can't process that in one clock cycle of a backbone router, so we have to compromise and set a very large but static size for the address. Several decades ago it was significantly more expensive to build a router that routed IPv6-sized addresses, so the compromise was much bigger than it is today.

Also, many security vulnerabilities/bugs in software are due to logical errors in handling dynamically-allocated memory. There would be an additional epic pile of fail in the computing world if internet addresses were like that.

Re:O M G by jroysdon · 2011-01-31 18:42 · Score: 1

5 more times as the RIRs run out.

Re:O M G by dch24 · 2011-01-31 18:51 · Score: 1

Do you have native IPv6 at home yet? Does your ISP support native IPv6?

Have you either installed any of the various IPv6 tunneling methods, then tested the most important websites for you, and found that they all support native IPv6?

Or, if you answered no to any of the above, have you started investing so you can afford to pay for IPv4 access? Because I'm not going to pay for you.

Google to the rescue... by WaffleMonster · 2011-01-31 19:10 · Score: 2

If anyone from google is reading this please consider preferencing sites with A and AAAA records in your search results or heck just threaten/rumor to do it.

Re:Google to the rescue... by jeremyp · 2011-01-31 20:34 · Score: 1

I'd have to stop using Google as my search engine if they did that. When I do a search I want the page that is most likely to answer my question at the top, not the site that has the best IPv6 support.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Google to the rescue... by WaffleMonster · 2011-01-31 21:09 · Score: 1

I'd have to stop using Google as my search engine if they did that. When I do a search I want the page that is most likely to answer my question at the top, not the site that has the best IPv6 support.
Well then maybe you should stop using google. They have been checking non-content metrics such as the responsiveness, availability and unrelated things such as the age and registration data of the domain for many years. It all factors into the picture.

Corporate /8 netmasks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 19:20 · Score: 0

If I may ask what several companies do with /8 masks? Apple, GE, IBM, MIT, HP, DEC etc. Re-use those first.

Re:Corporate /8 netmasks by FoolishOwl · 2011-01-31 20:22 · Score: 1

That gets brought up every time.
A: Reclaiming those address spaces will be difficult. It would take extensive internal auditing and network reorganization to free up those address spaces.
B: At current rates, it would only buy us an extra month or two.
Re:Corporate /8 netmasks by IceCreamGuy · 2011-01-31 23:00 · Score: 1

They weren't given to companies, they were given to to APNIC, the Asia Pacific regional Internet registry, so they could be split up and sold to private companies in reasonably-sized chunks.
Re:Corporate /8 netmasks by Kalriath · 2011-02-01 12:36 · Score: 1

Many of those were allocated under legacy terms which failed to clarify that netblocks are leased, not owned. They also failed to include utilisation requirements in the terms back then. They were changed like 10 years ago or so, but since the allocation agreement couldn't be retroactively modified, they can't reclaim those blocks - because in the eyes of the law, the companies with those blocks own them.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

This IS the end of IPv4 addresses by rdebath · 2011-01-31 19:22 · Score: 1

Just to put the rates into perspective ...

APNIC -- Asia Pacific region, have just been allocated 2 more /8's, once the final distribution is done they will have just under 6 free /8's allocated to them. This is expected to last until September ... THIS Year.

The current 'burn rate' of /8 for the world is about one every two weeks. Whatever happens IPv4 is running out of addresses RIGHT NOW and it will mean that ISPs will be running out before the end of 2012, some of them by the end of this year.

The Mayans were right. The end of the world is nigh!

Long live the world (of IPv6).

Re:This IS the end of IPv4 addresses by h00manist · 2011-01-31 21:39 · Score: 1

Does anyone know how much influence net-enable mobile phones had on this? I would assume it is taking a huge bite it took out of the available IP numbers.

--
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Re:This IS the end of IPv4 addresses by Dilligent · 2011-01-31 23:23 · Score: 1

AFAIK, most mobile network providers are NAT-ing to
a) reduce the number of IP's they have to give out
b) keep you from dropping all connections every time you switch from one tower to the next
Re:This IS the end of IPv4 addresses by JImbob0i0 · 2011-01-31 23:45 · Score: 1

Many mobile providers are using NAT already... just as most ISPs will for the next year at least...
Re:This IS the end of IPv4 addresses by marka63 · 2011-01-31 23:56 · Score: 1

The last /8s will be handed out later this week to the RIRs. IANA will then have no more unicast addresses to hand out.
Re:This IS the end of IPv4 addresses by marka63 · 2011-01-31 23:57 · Score: 1

Lots of them are behind LSN's or are IPv6 only with NAT64/DNS64. They were just another consumer of IP addresses.
Re:This IS the end of IPv4 addresses by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-02-01 09:22 · Score: 1

Practically all mobile networks seem to be using NAT already.

found some more by r00t · 2011-01-31 19:29 · Score: 0

Egypt just freed up some IPv4 address space.

Out of Egypt. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 19:35 · Score: 0

Not to worry, we can probably pull back some IPv4 addresses from Egypt. They'll have no further need for them.

We have altered our IPv4 allocation strategy. Pray we do not alter it further.

hey, I tried by r00t · 2011-01-31 19:38 · Score: 1

Well, I did check to see if anybody else had posted that joke, but then I had to log in again to actually post.

What is with this new Slashdot always logging me out? It seems that the cookie has changed or isn't enough to do the job.

I set Firefox to junk all cookies when I close the browser, then whitelisted the Slashdot cookies. This worked nicely for years. I can no longer even find the button to whitelist a cookie; probably a Firefox "upgrade" got rid of it to make the UI "easier" to use...???

Artifacts by TaoPhoenix · 2011-01-31 19:48 · Score: 2

Mrs. Frederic called. She says you were not supposed to divulge any information on Warehouse 2.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Re:O M G by FoolishOwl · 2011-01-31 20:12 · Score: 5, Informative

If you read the headlines carefully, you'd have noticed a pattern:

2001: IPv4 address space will run out in ten years.
2002: IPv4 address space will run out in nine years. ...
2010: IPv4 address space will run out next year.
2011: Last Available IPv4 Blocks Assigned. IPv4 address space will run out later this year.

Re:Who Cares? by sixthousand · 2011-01-31 20:20 · Score: 1

"So IPv6 you all know that we're almost out of v4 address space. I'm a little embarrassed about that because I was the guy that decided 32 bits was enough for the Internet experiment." -Vinton G. Cerf (Keynote at LinuxConfAU 2011)

NAT stupidity. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 20:42 · Score: 0

If ipv6 allowed NAT just like IPv4 it would be here already. Corporations DO NOT like every device to have a world routable address space. Push IPV6 natting and decent DHCP which works not the broken DHCPv6 and you would have overnight adoption.
This is all B.S. caused by a broken protocol no one wants to use. get rid of ipv6. create ipv7 with NAT as a component and a decent DHCPv7 like ipv4 has. everyone will jump on board.

Re:NAT stupidity. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 21:17 · Score: 0

Or they could use a stateful firewall they should be using instead of the implicit "security" of a nat?
Re:NAT stupidity. by omglolbah · 2011-01-31 22:44 · Score: 1

That would require them knowing what they're talking about.
Cant have that now can we :p
Re:NAT stupidity. by fostware · 2011-01-31 23:36 · Score: 1

Cisco Reflexive ACLs have existed from before 12.2 - It's a poor man's firewall which sums up NAT accurately.
Let's not get started on the frankenstein IPV6NAT standard...

--
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
Re:NAT stupidity. by marka63 · 2011-02-01 00:02 · Score: 1

Or they could use ULA address for internal communications and PA/PI addresses for external communications with a firewall.
Re:NAT stupidity. by Vegemeister · 2011-02-01 00:31 · Score: 1

If IPv6 allowed NAT just like IPv4 it would be just as broken as IPv4.

Where can I get IPv6 ? by rdebath · 2011-01-31 20:59 · Score: 1

"Hurricane Electric" will give me a 6to4 tunnel; that needs IP protocol 41 to get through to me. Works fine if I have a public IP but needs admin access to a NAT device.

I can use the anycast 6to4 address 192.88.99.1 for my 6to4 endpoint, but that's the same as a registered tunnel plus it's a bit of a pain if you have a dynamic IPv4 address.

I can use teredo but while that works properly through 'full cone' NATs (ie really dumb ones) it's anything from unreliable to completely broken for real ISP style NATs.

So has anyone got a reliable IPv6 connection through a real (ISP like, "commercial grade") NAT device, with multiple sessions going through it?

Re:Where can I get IPv6 ? by marka63 · 2011-02-01 00:08 · Score: 1

For HE you can use "https://ipv4.tunnelbroker.net/ipv4_end.php?ipv4b=auto&pass=$pass&user_id=$user_id&tunnel_id=$tunnel_id" and the tunnel broker will figure out the IPv4 address. Run it whenever you renew your lease. If you can't do that run it from cron. I call it using dhclient-exit-hooks. Fill in the relevant details for your tunnel.
Re:Where can I get IPv6 ? by timftbf · 2011-02-01 06:12 · Score: 1

Sixxs, with the AICCU client. Works from behind NAT without forwarding prot41 or anything else, tunneling protocol is dynamic using TIC and AYIYA.
Re:Where can I get IPv6 ? by Nigel+Stepp · 2011-02-01 10:19 · Score: 1

It was probably just a typo, but to help those who are reading...
HE gives you a "6in4" tunnel, which transmits ipv6 packets encapsulated in ipv4 packets. The names are confusingly similar, but 6to4 is a different technology that uses ipv4 to ipv6 address maps. The 192.88.99.1 anycast address is indeed 6to4.

--
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
Re:Where can I get IPv6 ? by rdebath · 2011-02-01 19:18 · Score: 1

Nope, not a typo. I hadn't even noticed the difference in terminology.
Though, really, I don't see any difference between the two methods worthy of a difference in name. Using an anycast address and implied IPv6 addresses is a really minor difference to using a fully configured point to point tunnel. Now "6over4" where you again have exactly the same protocol but interfere with the link addresses is such a difference. Or maybe not, it's just "6in4 with ipv4 link addresses"...
You're probably even using the same supplier for "6to4" as you do for "6in4".
Scheesh, what's this "6rd" thing. It's not even original it's just (err ... ) "6to4" with different numbers!!
Okay, okay I give up, call it what you like!!!!
Re:Where can I get IPv6 ? by rdebath · 2011-02-01 19:29 · Score: 1

Yes! This looks like it'll work till June, when I can give this ISP "the old heave ho".

Native ipv6! by leuk_he · 2011-01-31 21:17 · Score: 1

Why are you NATTING a ipv6 address in the first place? NATis very useful in certain condition because it implies an automatic firewall, but for IPV6 the one to many functinlatiy is not needed.

Re:Native ipv6! by rdebath · 2011-01-31 21:39 · Score: 1

I am NOT. The ISP is forcing NAT on the IPv4 connection and IPv6 tunnels don't work through it.
BTW: NAT isn't a firewall. If you have a firewall that does NAT it will probably work like a reasonable firewall even when the firewall part is turned off. BUT a pure "full cone" NAT works by creating port mappings from the public to the private. Once a port is open anything goes through; a modern firewall only lets through the original connection.

First point of impact? by gmuslera · 2011-01-31 21:35 · Score: 1

Ok, we reached the end of the road and are flying without noticing yet that there is no more floor below us. What will be the first points of impact? Residential connectivity will go to nat or force the start of ipv6 there? And where? I think that in Latin America there will be available ipv4s for a lot more time than i.e. for Asia

Re:First point of impact? by John+Hasler · 2011-02-01 04:45 · Score: 1

Residential connectivity will go to nat or force the start of ipv6 there? And where?
My guess is that most residential connectivity will go to LSNAT for new customers and some ISPs will force existing accounts onto it. Most mobile will go to IPv6.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

there are 5 more /8 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-31 22:22 · Score: 0

according to IANA there are some more
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml

Re:there are 5 more /8 by Askmum · 2011-01-31 23:27 · Score: 1

Suggest you read the article first. Fully. Including links.
Re:there are 5 more /8 by ais523 · 2011-02-01 01:14 · Score: 1

The rule is that when there are only 5 left, one is automatically earmarked for each of the five major RIRs (effectively, one /8 for each continent). The only reason they're still shown as unallocated is that IANA presumably hasn't yet decided which continent gets which /8 (which is of course mostly irrelevant, as they're just numbers). Also, http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml is a rather more readable version of your link.

--
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"

Re:Who Cares? by marka63 · 2011-01-31 22:58 · Score: 1

IPv4 was never designed for every person on the planet having a address. It's use went outside the design parameters and would have runout a decade or more ago except for NAT. There was a time when you had to be sponsored to be able to connect to this Internet thing.

The moment there was no restrictions on who could get a address the writing was on the wall. Just be happy it's lasted as long as it has.

In memoriam IPv4 by SpaghettiPattern · 2011-01-31 22:59 · Score: 1

With great joy we consumed the full IPv4 address space and I feel like at the end of a bacchanal. I mesmerise the goodness we had.

In time, IPv6 will provide an inconceivably large address space and IPv4 will only be run for nostalgic reasons by a few bearded men and several pigeons. Inevitably, in mind, IPv4 will be parked along side the split baud rate modems we cherished so much.

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)

Y2K bug. by Eunuchswear · 2011-02-01 00:02 · Score: 1

I run ICL George 3 (on as emulated ICL 1900) as a hobby.

The OS, last modified in early 1980, has no Y2K bugs.

One utility program has a Y2K bug.

http://www.icl1900.co.uk/

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:Who Cares? by TheRaven64 · 2011-02-01 00:32 · Score: 1

IPv4 was never designed for every person on the planet having a address

No, it was designed for every computer on the planet to have an address. At the time, four billion computers seemed vastly more than would ever be connected.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Seems an appropriate time... by Epsillon · 2011-02-01 00:53 · Score: 2

...to post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

--
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.

Re:Seems an appropriate time... by swillden · 2011-02-01 02:10 · Score: 1

That's awesome!

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:O M G by Kjella · 2011-02-01 01:33 · Score: 1

This is a pretty good image from 2008 onwards at least. The predicted time has varied by a few months but the money has been on 2011 at least for the last three years.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

it's the by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 02:55 · Score: 0

end of the world as we know it
it's the end of the world as we know it
and I feel fine... :D

IPv6 /48 prefix by SETY · 2011-02-01 03:09 · Score: 1

I want a IPv6 /48 prefix from my ISP. That is all. Tunnels are great for testing, but really they have had years and years and years to prepare.

do *not* Get a tunnel. by jaredmauch · 2011-02-01 03:49 · Score: 1

Real routers don't have 'state tables'.

Ask your ISP for IPv6 access. Enable your web server/site for IPv6 day. Use a 'web bug' tracker item to identify broken thins.

visit places like http://test-ipv6.com/ to try to understand how ready you are.

Make sure if you have a tunnel, or use one, you do not add too much latency to your connection. The CDNs won't send your traffic over IPv6 if your IPv6 goes to some other continent or geographical region.

Re:do *not* Get a tunnel. by smash · 2011-02-01 20:30 · Score: 1

Routers that do NAT have state tables to maintain which port maps back to which internal ip address.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:do *not* Get a tunnel. by jaredmauch · 2011-02-02 01:19 · Score: 1

You are talking about a Firewall device that performs NAT, (and appears as a "router" on the lan. Most of what you see at the store/online is not a "real" router IMHO. Then again, I'm biased as I deal with n*10G all day in a large network. When people call those devices at their home a 'modem' or 'router' i generally wince. I think of them more along the lines of a media converter (dsl, cable to rj45/802.3)
Re:do *not* Get a tunnel. by smash · 2011-02-02 11:48 · Score: 1

No, i'm also talking about cisco gear. Do "show ip nat translations". Thats a NAT state table by another name. Do you know how NAT works?

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:do *not* Get a tunnel. by jaredmauch · 2011-02-02 15:14 · Score: 1

You're talking about small routers. I'm talking about stuff like t1600 where everything is done entirely in hardware. If you look at the QFP in the ASR1k (cisco) you will see where it can do the nat, etc in hardware. that's more sensible than a lot of the devices where things are just pure slow-path (ie: punted to cpu for the fib lookup based on the various ribs your device may have).
We're talking about entirely different classes [and engineered uses] of equipment, and that's obvious to me. Hope you understand that as well.
Re:do *not* Get a tunnel. by smash · 2011-02-02 15:49 · Score: 1

And whether it does it in hardware or not, the way NAT works requires a table of port:internal IP mappings - whether it is in hardware or software. Eventally you run out of ports/table space - there are only a limited number of ports.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

Yeah I get it but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-01 04:00 · Score: 0

I get it...they have been saying it for years...but who really needs an /8 block that doesnt already have one? we should have been reclaiming these huge and mostly unused blocks YEARS ago...why does my phone need a public IP again? (do not say push email!!) Why does HP, Apple, Etc still have those huge blocks? you cant tell me they NEED more then a few thousand outside IPs

Non Network-centic Corporations in the list? by Mazzella! · 2011-02-01 04:53 · Score: 1

Why do companies like Ford Motor Company, Eli Lily & Company, Halliburton Company, Merck and Co., Inc. still each have a */8 allocation again? I can understand they may have been forward thinking back in the early 90's when the internet was just opening up, but within a few years most major organizations implemented firewalls and NAT so all they really needed was a few class C's at best.

Why do those companies listed above in particular still have such a large allocation?

--
1.3L, 3 moving parts, 280 HP, no Turbos, wanna Race? RotaryNe

Re:Non Network-centic Corporations in the list? by OrangeTide · 2011-02-01 05:58 · Score: 1

Freeing up two dozen /8's will only delay the inevitable. It seems likely that we'll be primarily using IPv6 before the end of this decade, and by next decade we might see some equipment and software dropping IPv4 support.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

APNIC gets last available IPv4 blocks by sb · 2011-02-01 09:34 · Score: 1

It's interesting to read what APNIC's own chief scientist thought of IPv4 exhaustion only five years ago. Quotes from that article:

"The death of IPv4 has not really killed the Internet. In fact, far from it, we've managed to make an industry around it. We've already created a business around where we are, not where we want to be. Skype is not a charity and it works in all of this muck. If it couldn't work, complain to me, but as long as it works, I don't see the problem."

and

"Anyone that is a clever economic unit will buy and sell. Anyone with class B addresses will figure out that if they band up behind a NAT, they can sell off all spare addresses. So scarcity is just a pricing function and there will be a market in address compression."

So now APNIC gets 3 out of the last 7 /8 blocks, which I know was always to be expected due to the growth in the APAC region. But one also gets the feeling that several big players are planning to purposefully delay IPv6 adoption as long as humanly possible in order to monetise the hell out of their IPv4 allocations.

Expect the net to become nice big clusterfuck of CGN and other "solutions" in the next few years before everyone finally gives up and migrates to IPv6... assuming the transition actually happens and we don't kiss end-to-end goodbye forever.

Found the Problem! by cnystrom · 2011-02-01 09:36 · Score: 1

I found the problem! Some sites are using more than one!!! :)

$ nslookup
> www.google.com
Server: 10.1.4.15
Address: 10.1.4.15#53

Non-authoritative answer:
www.google.com canonical name = www.l.google.com.
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.105
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.106
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.147
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.99
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.103
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.104

Slashdot Mirror

Last Available IPv4 Blocks Allocated

312 comments