Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Asia Runs Out of IPv4 Addresses

Posted by timothy on from the perhaps-you'd-like-to-try-the-duck dept.

ZerXes writes "It seems that APNIC has just released the last block of IPv4 addresses and are now completely out, a lot faster then expected. Even though APNIC received 3 /8 blocks in February the high growth of mobile devices made the addresses run out even before the summer. 'From this day onwards, IPv6 is mandatory for building new Internet networks and services,' says APNIC Director General Paul Wilson."

16 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. So which is which? by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "It seems that APNIC has just released the last block of IPv4 addresses and are now completely out, a lot faster then expected.

    The headline says something to the effect that IP addresses are out yet the quoted line has the word 'seems', casting doubt as to whether the addresses are out for sure. What's really going on?

    1. Re:So which is which? by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A /22 is pretty much nothing, so what you're saying is that an ISP looking for addresses can get pretty much nothing from APNIC. Thus, they're basically out.

      A /22 is probably enough for a moderate-sized ISP to run NAT for all of their customers. Which is the point: IPv4 addresses are being rationed to the point where end users won't be able to get them any more. That's not *quite* the same thing as being out. IPv6 transition won't be mandatory, as long as you can do everything you want to do from behind NAT (as most users can).

      NAT destroys the peer to peer nature of the network. It limits who can run servers of any type to those who are outside NAT.

      Using NAT at the ISP level is basicly evil and should not be considered when we are going to need to deploy IPv6 anyway.

  2. Do Mobiles really need IPv4? by neokushan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This might have a really obvious answer, but is there any reason why mobiles necessarily need an IPv4 address? Surely they could get away with IPv6 and a bit of tunnelling. Hell, in the UK most mobiles share an IP anyway.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? by crow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm very glad that my phone has a real IP address, so I can ssh into it. Thanks, Sprint.

      That said, I wouldn't mind if it were IPv6, but I would be annoyed if it were through a NAT.

    2. Re:Do Mobiles really need IPv4? by doublebackslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sweet! You mean to say that all websites and application specific servers for mobile phones have been migrated to ipv6! Awesome!

      Oh wait... hold on a second... Almost the entirety of the English speaking Internet still isn't on ipv6?

      Whats that you say? Not even friggin' slashdot?

      I wonder if THAT is why.

      Now having said that: Every computer I'm an admin for is 100% ipv6 compatible and all of my servers have AAAA dns records alongside their A records. I've even got a nice little OSPFv3 infrastructure running. It isn't friggin rocket surgery, but everyone is dragging their ass on the ground like the problem will become someone else's, when in reality it will shortly become everyone's. All of my efforts are in vain so long as there is a dearth of IPv6 accessible content.

      By the by, are you running IPv6?

      Lastly: For everyone who says that it is "hard" for large network to migrate, and they they have to re-learn everything yadda yadda:

      IPv6 is easier to work with on a large scale thanks to the simplified routing tables that it affords as well as the shotgun approach to address assignment. Every single link is a /64 at minimum (and maximum, given the number addresses in a /64) and the blocks can be handed out ham-fistedly because of the mind boggling size of the space. If they have hardware that does not support ipv6 then they should blame themselves. Large network operators have NO EXCUSE. They knew this was coming and their profit margins are wide enough that they could have thrown money at it.

      --
      md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
      d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
  3. Then by fswine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    GRAMMAR NAZI ALERT!

    "a lot faster then expected"

    Do people know the difference between then and than anymore?

    Inappropriate use of your/you're there/their/they're then/than drives me nuts.

    ZerXes, go back to digg.

    1. Re:Then by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obvious non native English speakers do not understand that "then" is a form of time and "than" is a form of consequence.

      Still I think telling them to go away is quite arrogant since these speakers do make an effort to write English while most native English speakers make no effort at all learning ANY foreign language.

      Oh yes, I am a native Dutch speaker.

  4. Re:Dual Stacks..... forever... by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gopher is not a good example. When a site already has an IPv4 address it has no incentive to offer it over IPv6 too, since v6 offers no technological benefit to the webhost. Conversely, a site that is only on IPv6 is not going to get any hits, so anyone that wants traffic needs an IPv4 address anyway. IPv4 is simply not going to go away because the people without an address are kicking up a fuss. I would guess that those people will be stuck in their own IPv6 world, while all the content worth viewing would still be on IPv4.

  5. Re:what about the map? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't work that way. IP numbers are not UUIDs. They have to be hierarchical to keep the routing tables from becoming unmanageable. You can't just hand them out randomly.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. NAT by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm being serious here with this question: Why do people feel that EVERY new device needs a public address? 99.9% of mobile devices would be quite happy behind NAT. And, the vast majority of 'home' PC's would work behind NAT. Most corporate LANs are also sitting safely behind them.

    Sure there are some exceptions, but most people really don't need unrestricted incoming connections.

    Is wider use of NAT the 'answer'? Perhaps not, but it would extend use of v4 for decades..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:NAT by lanner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must be one of those people who wants the Internet to be like TV -- for "consumers" and "viewers" only.

      For people, like me, who have to actually manage networks, NAT is one of the worst things that happened in networking that we still have to deal with. You end up with two sets of DNS for each company, public and private IP networks to manage, firewalls and routers doing additional processing that is wasting CPU and memory.

      NAT also severely restricts the capabilities of what are possible on the Internet. It firmly gives control to those with public addresses (big companies) and takes it away from individual users.

    2. Re:NAT by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NAT is a solution to address depletion in the same manner than increasing the debt cap is a solution to the US national deficit.

      NAT, to a networking professional, is an abomination. It functions literally by breaking TCP/IP and lying to network neighbors. It functions by breaking the rules networks are designed and intended to play by, and overuse of NAT prevents any intelligence in routing and networking. Imagine if mailing addresses were limited in the same manner. Everything is a PO Box. Now imagine several layers of PO Boxes have to be traversed for anything to be delivered.

      Moving to IPv6 is the right way to fix this. It's not easy, but it's the right way to do it.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    3. Re:NAT by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Address shortages are a very, very, very tiny, miniscule fraction of IPv6. If IPv6 was about address shortages, the IPng working group would have adopted TUBA.

      You seem unwilling to even recognize any of the other features of IPv6:

      • Built-in security
        Built-in device mobility
      • Built-in network mobility
      • Built-in multimedia support
      • Extensible headers for dynamic protocol upgrades
      • Auto-configuration
      • Reduced latency
      • Improved router reliability (partly due to simpler routing protocols)
      • Native multicasting
      • Native anycasting
      • Superior QoS support

      Don't even think of coming back with "but nobody uses these" - nobody was driving until the car was adopted either. Things have a habit of not being used when they're not available. When they are available, they are used. It's as simple as that.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:NAT by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      I actually enable individual users to share their data, creating crowd-sourced systems.

      1. Individual users have and will continue to have real IP addresses. Their toasters and refrigerators do not. Single IP address is sufficient for peer to peer communication, as countless products (that actually work) had shown.

      No, absoultely incorrect. Out of IPs means OUT OF IPs... It means in some part of the world you may not even see a single address to run any servers of any kind... What you will get is a shared IP on a CGN with all incoming requests silently discarded by the ISP CGN... This will be reality for countless millions in the developing world in the next few years.

  7. Re:geographic distribution by dakameleon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that's what tends to happen when you get there first. It's not like they were going to reserve addresses on a per-capita basis.

    --
    Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  8. Re: Bullshit. by definate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, while I hate being the part of the internet to first go through the crunch (though I've seen this coming for years), I am happy that IPv6 is finally going to be pushed through. Now that the Great Address Space Crunch is here!

    I don't like your definition of out, since that's like saying "There's food in this cage, you can't eat it, but you're not out of food". To the hungry person, their effective quantity of available food, is nothing. Additionally, if we then implement APNIC's policy "Okay, it's not that you can't eat it. But we're going to give a tiny portion, to a few people, every now and then, such that this food may last an amazingly long time". By your measure, IPv4 may never run out. Sure, we can't get any more addresses, but there are addresses there, so, we're not out... right?

    Their policy is to keep these allocations small, to provide for IPv4 to IPv6 services, so they are rationed out, this means that, IPv4 may NEVER run out, because by the time they go to allocate the last /22, which might be quite a long time from now (due to how slow this pool will drop), then IPv6 may be implemented and demand for IPv4 may dwindle.

    But by your measure, we're not out. Sure, we're starving, but we're not out of food, it's just in that cage over there.

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.