Slashdot Mirror
Asia Runs Out of IPv4 Addresses
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."
"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?
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
IPv4 addresses may be running out, but we can all look forward to supporting them forever in a second stack, running parallel to our IPv6 software, now and forever, for the rest of eternity, Amen.
Unless the entire world magically switches over to IPv6 all at once like the designers planned for. Hasn't happened yet though.
May the Maths Be with you!
At least now IPv6 is mandatory!
Wouldn't it have been better to make it mandatory years ago?
Yeah, let's transform internet to a television. Yay.
Why? I already have an inet6 address. Anyone who bought hardware that doesn't do ipv6 in the past two years must not be a real geek.
Caveat Utilitor
A glance at the master IANA table here seems to say that the USA got the majority of ipv4 addresses, even though today the majority of devices is elsewhere.
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.
http://xkcd.com/195/
Ask Ford for some?
Whoops, kid, it looks like you're growing up! You're getting too big for your clothes. Don't worry, though, it's nothing a little surgery can't fix.
So no they don't need their own public IPv4 address and indeed I've never seen one that has one. However you do need IPv4 addresses to access stuff on the Internet. Regardless of if you do IPv4 NAT or if you do IPv6 with gateways to v4, you need the IPv4 addresses.
Neither my ISP nor my tomato routers support in6 :(
(dd had issues and openwrt was a PITA to set up)
proud caffeine whore
4,294,967,296 ought to be enough for anybody.
I won't ever say that unless it involves physical things in numbers greater than the number of atoms in the universe. And damn, if we start making memory out of quarks I'll even be wrong there too...
And here I was, going to compare it to putting a band-aid over a bullet wound.
http://tomatousb.org/
"""Network Address Translation [wikipedia.org] could provide some relief I think...no?"""
No.
BACKGROUND:
NAT, in the way which can be used by ISPs to reduce the need for IP addresses, works by mapping multiple internal IP addresses to a external one (or groups of external ones). So say you have a one thousand computers you need to keep online and you have only 100 addresses. NAT will allow you to logically map those 100 addresses to the one thousand computers.
NAT is able to do this by connection tracking. The router keeps in memory what connections were created with what external IP address and then routes the data from the reply back to the original host. So say my browser opens up a socket on 192.168.1.129:59343 and connects to Google on "www.google.com:80". The NAT router opens up a connection on 208.32.20.1:78190, connects to 'www.google.com:80'. When the machine listening on 'www.google.com:80' sends information back to 208.32.20.1:78190. Any data received on 208.32.20.1:78190 then automatically gets forwarded to 192.168.1.129:59343, which then is received by my browser.
WHY NAT IS FULL OF FAIL:
The reason that NAT + IPv4 is not a substitute for IPv6 is because the number of sockets that a router can open and manage is less then 16bits. That is the socket numbering scheme is 16bit scheme, of which a substantial number of sockets are reserved for specific protocols. That is less then 60,000 possible connections can be made by a router with a single public IP address.
Each new connection made by a machine behind a new router requires a new socket established. Just by having 3 tabs on my browser right now I am using roughly 20 connections. Each connection is going to a ad provider, google, different slashdot.org servers, etc etc.
Say that a internet user is using about 50 active connections at any one time then that means that 1 public address can only support about 1200 concurrent users. But it will break down long before that. People using bittorrent may use 300 TCP connections, which means that you can only support a 100-200 users.
The other aspect of this is that there is not enough IPv4 addresses for internet routers. That is a new ISP will run out of IP addresses long before they are even finish building their infrastructure!!! There wouldn't be enough addresses to even setup NAT routers!
This is taken care of by 'Carrier Grade NAT'. Which is you use NAT firewalls for your NAT firewall.
So....
Internet ----> NAT firewall -----(TCP tunnelled over TCP) ----> NAT firewall ----> Your home NAT router ----> Your PC.
Ever wonder why your bittorrent connections turn to shit!?
For Asia users this is already not good enough. They have RUN OUT. They cannot use NAT to extend it any further... they are over and done with.
Why not just make sockets 32bit or 64bit? Because that's retarded when you have IPv6, that's why.
I am currently running a IPv6 /32 network for my PERSONAL HOME NETWORK. All these are real, public, IP addresses.
79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 addresses and 4,294,967,296 sub networks.
A subnet for IPv6 is a /64 network. 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses in a /64 subnet.
When IPv6 rolls around most people will end up getting a /48 network address. This is _only_ 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 addresses and 65,536 networks.
There are 281,474,976,710,656 /48 network addresses in total to give away. We will now only have to worry about IP address exhaustion when the human race becomes interstellar.
So, yeah, IPv4 luddites with their NAT savior complexes can go screw themselves. I want a efficient, open, and secure internet. NAT precludes this.
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 ----
Why not? This is how the overwhelming majority of people interface with the internet anyway: content consumption. ipv6; by virtue of the reality of the fact we are not running it yet, appears to be a project failure in terms of it's stated goal to supercede ipv4. We could press ahead with it, or consider alternatives such as NAT.
Most folk I know who need an IP address fall into one of two categories:
The precise problem many folk here have with going to NAT I fail to fully grok. It will not limit how you can use the Internet; but it will modify the way certain types of problems are solved. Big deal; this is network protocol stuff, and working around problems (such as fact that TCP/IP is unicast, or HTTP is client/server send/receive) is par for the course. Maybe some people like their Internet 'pure' or something; me I try to take a more pragmatic approach. ipv6 transition I fear is going to be massively disruptive over a period of at least 2 years and it is going to cost us all alot of money. Maybe Utopia indeed awaits us on the the otherside, but having been promised Utopia many times on many different disruptive technology transition projects; I can't help but feel a little cynical
IPv6 is only in the 8MB images. I have 2 WRT54GLs, you insensitive clod!
proud caffeine whore
Here's what we got from APNIC this morning: Dear APNIC community We are writing to inform you that as of Friday, 15 April 2011, the APNIC pool reached the Final /8 IPv4 address block, bringing us to Stage Three
of IPv4 exhaustion in the Asia Pacific. For more information about Stage
Three, please refer to: http://www.apnic.net/ipv4-exhaustion/stages
Last /8 address policy:
APNIC's objective during Stage Three is to provide IPv4 address space
for new entrants to the market and for those deploying IPv6. ..but given how fast APNIC reached the final /8, you'd think it won't be long before they run out entirely.
"It is a moral imperative" -- Real Genius
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
I bought a cheapo asus wireless router for about $30 on amazon a year ago (sorry, don't remember the model number and I'm not home right now). It does ipv6 just fine. I actually bought it to put the smaller dd-wrt image on, and that's what I did as soon as it arrived, but it seems the dd-wrt firmware makes the router's CPU run too hot and my connection would become unreliable. But with the stock firmware it does a fine job for a basic home router. I was tempted to keep dd-wrt and mod the thing for better cooling, but then I got lazy and settled for "good enough".
Caveat Utilitor
I'm a bit surprised that the parent was modded off topic. The fact is that when they were first passing out brains IP blocks 'way back when, most of Asia weren't players in the internet game. I recall a briefing from the beginning of the century stating that most of India was running behind a massive NAT gateway.... and thus suggesting that most Asian nations would be moving to ipv6 earlier than the OECD out of necessity.
So, yeah, APNIC is likely very motivated to go ipv6. But, don't discount the allure of the cheap fix.
Luke, help me take this mask off
They're the first to be forced into IPv6. So they'll be further along the learning curve. Welcome our new networking overlords indeed.
Have gnu, will travel.
ipv6 transition I fear is going to be massively disruptive over a period of at least 2 years and it is going to cost us all alot of money
And NATing everything is not going to be disruptive and cost a lot of money?
Large scale NAT is a stopgap measure. It will simply delay exhaustion a few more years, maybe a decade. It is not a viable long term solution. Then once we're totally out of IPv4 space, we'll need to implement IPv6 or something similar anyway.
NAT or no NAT, IPv4 is no longer viable for widespread use.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
And NATing everything is not going to be disruptive and cost a lot of money?
NAT is already here and in widespread use in every small office and multi device household; whereas ipv6 is not. To insist some sort of cost equivalence between the two projects; where option one involves hacking an existing framework to extend the network's reach, vs swapping in a brand new network on a global scale; is just staggeringly irrational. By all means, have your ipv6 if it is so precious to you, but when you break, in probability, the internet during the transition stage, which our civilization has now become heavily coupled to; be prepared to answer your critics.
NAT or no NAT, IPv4 is no longer viable for widespread use.
And so say the religious zealots. In all probability your ipv6 utopia will arrive; and in all probability, the disruption this transition I suspect will cause, will impact the viability and usefulness of the Internet for a number of years and it will become regular topic of discussion amongst general population and media.
your != you're
/* No Comment */
That is less then 60,000 possible connections can be made by a router with a single public IP address.
That depends on how clever the NAT is. Technically each server you talk to doesn't know what ports you are using to talk to each other servers. So there is nothing stopping a nat using an internet side port to talk to multiple servers at the same time. Such a scheme will completely any protocol that tries to do "nat traversal" but it should keep the basics working at very high user:IP ratios.
Still I would expect IPv6 to seep in if only to try and reduce the load on the big nats.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Brilliant explanation. Thank you for taking the time to write that up.
IPv4 is inherently insecure. IPv4 is inherently immobile. IPv4 is inherently non-extensible.
IPv6 is inherently secure. IPv6 is inherently mobile. IPv6 is inherently extensible.
Now, tell me which makes the most sense for mobile devices?
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)
Turn running out of IP addresses into a drinking game?
The other big issue with NATs is traversal. You can't run bittorrent at all unless most hosts on the internet can be directly reached; it relies on peers being directly addressable.
When the NAT is on your home gateway, you (or your software) can instruct it to forward certain ports to certain hosts inside the NAT. When the NAT is run by the ISP, shared by hundreds of users, you can't do that - contention for the well known ports makes it impossible.
But clever people have realised that a NAT will often redirect all connections on a particular port back to you if you open up just one connection on that port. So if you can find a willing host to report back what port you've just connected from, you can tell others to use that.
Which breaks if you try to be clever about using the full (host, port, port, host) tuple to identify each connection.
You also have a scalability issue if you try to shove thousands of users onto a single address; storing and searching the state table for hundreds of thousands of mappings requires hardware that hasn't been built yet.
But many IP devices do not have built-in firewall, so you -still- want to run a border router firewall right? And if every machine is behind your border router, then those limitations are still going to apply. So you want to let certain traffic in to certain hosts. Some hosts are dmz, some hosts are very private, and some are in the middle. Its still a lot to manage. The only thing it solves is peer-to-peer communications right? But you are going to have to deal on a host by host and service by service basis which peer to peer protocols will be allowed in and wont be.
Maybe NAT makes some kind of peer-to-peer relationships impossible. But, I dont think that IPv6 will make anything easy. And I think its going to permanently piss people off at the Internet and those responsible for the new design.
where are the ISP's With IPV6 and routers / modems?
how many have IPV6 some have it but only for revB so you have to re buy the router to get IPv6 and then it's up your ISP to have a IPV6 modem and IPV6 as well.
One difference: today, you're NAT'ing a real public IP address with a router over which you have direct control and can forward ports at will. If the NAT is being done by your ISP, and you're stuck NAT'ing a NAT'ed private IP address whose public IP is totally under the control of your ISP, things become enormously more complicated.
On the other hand, insofar as mobile devices go, NAT is almost a moot point, anyway. As far as I know, every EVDO and UMTS mobile phone on earth is effectively firewalled by carriers who won't forward inbound traffic anyway, so mobile phones might as *well* be NAT'ed since having a public IP address does them no good, anyway.
As far as I know, every EVDO and UMTS mobile phone on earth is effectively firewalled by carriers who won't forward inbound traffic anyway, so mobile phones might as *well* be NAT'ed since having a public IP address does them no good, anyway.
Mobile Phones ARE NATed as far as I know. MY UMTS-ATT phone has a 10.11.x.x IP no matter where I am.
The non-forward of inbound traffic is pretty much a godsend if you ask me. I can't imagine the howl of protest for being forced to pay bandwidth charges for every script-kiddy trying to hack my phone. The Sleeping TCP socket trick used by various push services from Apple/Google/Exchange, et al, accomplishes what is needed in terms of inbound traffic.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The US invented the Internet. The Internet originally started as ARPANET a research network designed by DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an agency of the US Department of Defense. It started out as a link between a few US research universities and institutes. TCP/IP was then developed by Robert Kahn and Vince Cerf, working for DARPA. DARPA liked it and funded the development of the software to implement it.
After that various other government entities created TCP/IP networks based around ARPANET like the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and so on. Those unified in to what become the Internet.
Now that is not to say it did not become a global endevour. Around the time the Internet came to be, CERN made their own TCP network, CERNET, and then they started looking to link up with the US Internet and did so around 1989. Also CERN of course developed the basis of the world wide web. However the Internet itself started in the US.
That's why IANA, the ultimate top level controller of Internet numbers, is based in the US. It was created there to manage things on ARPANET.
You have to remember that nobody who was designing this was thinking "Global communications system that links every computer, every phone, every TV, etc on the planet." Such a concept was really pretty unimaginable. This was just an effort to get an efficient, interoperable network for linking big institutions.
So when IPs first started being handed out it was done inefficently. If you were real big, you got a Class A (/8, 16 million), if you were moderately sized a Class B (/16, 65 thousand) if you were small you got a Class C (/24, 256). Companies like AT&T and IBM got entire Class As for themselves. Most of that went to US entities, since they were the only ones who could get on at the time. ARPANET and some of the other research networks like NSFNET that started all this were only for research institutions and public entities. So only universities, research labs (like SRI), the military, and companies involved in the research could get on and thus get addresses.
Yes, yes, all bad in hindsight but who knew the Internet would become what it has? It also is just how shit goes. You invent something, you get to have it your way.
Neil Degrasse Tyson calls it "naming rights" and shows how it happens when various cultures are on the top of their game R&D wise. The US invented the Internet, so they got to have things like .gov for their government sites. The US invented the telephone system so they get 1 as their country code. The British invented the post office so they don't have to put their country on stamps, everyone else does.
The Internet shows a lot of slant towards the US because it started there, and developed most fully there first. The US by far had (and still has) the most advanced Internet infrastructure. The invented it, they were there first and best, that is why it is theirs in many ways.
Since general /. consensus (and I underscore that it is /. and not any of the other engineers I deal with) is that "ipv6 just works", I trried it on my Mac.
ifconfig en0 does helpfully suggest that there is an ipv6 address assigned (and it is based on my computer's Mac, leaking my identity all over the net, with Linux iptables developers specifically refusing to hide it for religious reasons, but that's another story)
ok, easy - I'll just ping my own address then to begin with.
ping - oops, "cannot resolve, unknown host"
traceroute - same deal. clearly they don't recognize this as an IP address, and try to use it as a host name.
Hmm, may be Firefox?
Let's try that Google ipv6 address - http://[2001:4860:0:2001::68]/ (oh, that'll be fun to explain to users)
Here we go - "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at [2001:4860:0:2001::68]."
Well, at least it knows that's an address, I think...
I think I'll try again in 10 years.
And you think the ISPs care about your ability to run Bittorrent? I assure you the vast majority of them wish that protocol had never been invented. :-)
I see the same thing on Sprint/Boost's CDMA network.
I can't find the IP of my device, but going out to the real world via http, I see the IP of a proxy, and a HTTP_VIA header, with an invalid hostname (no TLD), and it reports to be "Squid/2.7.STABLE7" (hey guys, time to upgrade).
NAT, I'm ok with. Proxying my connections, I don't like as much. Well, since I get gateway timeouts on a fairly regular basis, they need to work on their infrastructure a bit. NAT is much easier on the network than proxying, although I'm sure it saves them a few bucks on their uplink bandwidth.
The people whining about "oh my public IP" are the edge cases, or they're just repeating the same old BS. How many people really need public IPs? I'd bet if the major ISPs gave out public IPs on request (not even charging money), the majority of users wouldn't bother nor know the difference of having a private IP.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Do many devices need a built in firewall?
Your border router example is good, as a stateful firewall is very similar to a NAT system, and the latter implies the former anyway. However why should I put my TV behind a firewall? So a hacker gains access and displays a goatse image on it. I may even get a laugh out of it. My computer on the other hand does have a firewall since there is sensitive information on it. My mobile phone ... haven't a clue, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of mobile devices out there do not have firewalls either and run just fine.
It seems direct attacks are likely to occur on large networks. Computers are a great target due to their many attack vectors and usually associated bandwidth, but most of the consumer computers out there have a basic firewall in place. It doesn't seem to do much if anything at all as by a long shot the vast majority of attacks are social or occur in an authenticated way, i.e. user clicking on .scr file because they are stupid, or user typing their credit card number into www.palpay.com/accountreset. Against this a firewall is absolutely useless.
I can't find the IP
Try dialing *#*#4636#*#* then select Phone Info, and it will probably be listed in there.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Already out there and have been for years. They sell IPv6-capable modems too.
One of their biggest issues was dealing with a "prominent NA router vendor starting with C" where their LNSs and other hardware would fail spectacularly running certain common dual-stack configurations. It took them years to develop a stable patch for it.
LOAD ".SIG"
PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
"NAT or no NAT, IPv4 is no longer viable for widespread use."
Of V4, V6 and NAT, then only V4 is viable for widespread use. The others are islands with limited connectivity into the V4 core.
Between v4 and the insanity that is v6, there are still lots of options.
Need Mercedes parts ?
and how does the intermediate node server work if it's also under NAT?
Awesome, so only the big boys get to play on the internet. That's not a horrible monopoly or anything..
You know, I hate it when I'm wrong. But..... Through the Blackberry Diagnostic Report, voila, a public IP. I also have ICMP enabled (it's the 6th line of the report), but this IP isn't pingable either. So they give us a public IP, and then push our web browsing through a proxy? I wonder how many middle-managements a day it takes to come up with some of these ideas.
[sarcasm]Anyways, they're only sitting on a /10. It's not a big waste of resources or anything. [/sarcasm]
$whois 184.211.xxx.xxx
# The following results may also be obtained via:
# http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=184.211.xxx.xxx?showDetails=true&showARIN=false
#
NetRange: 184.192.0.0 - 184.255.255.255
CIDR: 184.192.0.0/10
OriginAS:
NetName: SPRINT-WIRELESS
NetHandle: NET-184-192-0-0-1
Parent: NET-184-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Why? I already have an inet6 address
Lucky you. My ISP won't even be trialling IPv6 until June. A proper rollout is unlikely to happen this year, from all I can gather. My understanding is that this is likely to be the case for most UK ISPs, as BT didn't finish implementing the infrastructure until quite recently (amazingly, the designs for a network upgrade they called "21st century network" didn't originally include IPv6 support...).
And I don't consider tunnelling to be an appropriate answer. Even the most local tunnel providers I can find add an extra 4 or 5 hops to my packet routes, resulting in a 50%+ increase in latency to many sites. IPv6 will only be useful when I'm using it natively, directly to my ISP's routers. Which isn't going to happen any time soon.
Of course, a firewall is merely a way of restricting certain services to a local network only. This does not apply to many appliance-type devices; usually they expose no services and instead only connect to services on other machines.
The only case where a firewall would have any meaning for these devices is if their core IP stack contained an exploitable bug. This kind of thing, however, has happened in the past. If you make every toaster individually addressable (no firewall), then every toaster is going to also need some method of updating the protocol stack in case a bug like this is discovered. Making only primary devices such as computers and routers externally addressable simplifies the problem, since these devices tend to already have an update method in place to deal with known exploits.
Also, even though your TV may not have an auto-update mechanism, it is likely it is running a somewhat complex OS if it is connected to the Internet. This means that if you don't care and allow TVs to be owned, they will present a large attack threat to everyone else by being added to botnets.
Unfortunately it's wrong in some places. Like listing the limitations based on the use of bittorrent. Bittorrent won't work if everyone in the swarm is NAT'd. NAT was the poor man's firewall for years because it hides the hosts. P2P can't work if everyone is hidden. There are some tricks that may work, but generally the actual number of people per address is higher than he indicated.
Additionally, if you read the article, they report that they are allowing 1000 addresses to new ISPs. If you can't set up a NAT-based ISP with 1000 addresses, then you shouldn't be setting up an ISP at all. You won't run out of addresses. In fact, there's nothing (other than violating the RFCs, which are as optional as the pirate laws) which would prevent you from setting up an entire ISP with millions of customers using one and only one public IP assigned to your equipment (the rest given RFC 1918 addresses). And even then, most often when you uplink you get the IP address from the carrier you uplink with. That leaves you with 1024 addresses to use for NAT (well, 1022 or less, depending on subnetting).
As such, his idealized 1200 per IP is probably closer to reality than his 100-200 number expecting everyone will be running P2P. So with 100 per IP, the worst case, they'll be able to handle 100,000 users. With the more realistic 1200, there can be more than a million users. They have more than 16k of those to give out, for a total amount of support with nat of 20 billion users. Oh, and if the worst-case 100 is used, that's still more than a billion people that could be supported on what's left there.
So yes, they are out, but it isn't the crisis of collapse yet.
Learn to love Alaska
So why does APNIC not confiscate these lowlifes' addresses, and hand them out to honest customers? If they're reactive enough in doing so, the addresses might actually not yet be "burned" (on blacklists), and still usable...
I suppose but you could use the Apple defense here. Unless Microsoft of some major vendor comes and starts writing a standard system for toasters and TVs would someone bother finding a way to attack the device? I mean even already we have a LOT of portable devices running on some form of Windows CE, yet there are no serious documented cases of exploits in the wild. Even the so called "crisis" Nokia phones were experiencing in the past with SMSes that could brick devices, and bluetooth viruses that would infect everyone on a subway ... didn't. These potentially had a huge impact yet disappeared into the ether.
The other potential form of security by obscurity is the fact that each IPv6 block is allocated a /64. This makes network scanning virtually impossible, meaning that it is quite likely my toaster would have to go out looking for a virus, in which case the social angle again could be played to bypass everything.
Such a scheme will completely any protocol that tries to do "nat traversal" but it should keep the basics working at very high user:IP ratios.
At least they know what they are doing. It would be worse if they accidentally any protocol that tries to do "nat traversal".
Bullshit.
They are not out. They have a /8 remaining. Yes, a /22 is not a lot, but this will ensure that APNIC will not run out for the next few years (unless people start registering LIRs like crazy).
As all the large players have gotten their large allocations already, they will not run out themselves that quickly, either.
This still means that IPv6 must be deployed yesteryear, but APNIC has not, and will not, run out of IPv4 any time soon. They will just not hand it out like candy any more.
Least of our problems.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
You sound like a telephone operator in 1994. Those crazy kids with their modems!
For many consumers P2P filesharing is the reason why they want a > 20Mb/s connection. It's what sells premium packages, even if ISPs will never admit it.
Fuck me! You serious? This post. Again?
You've either never read Slashdot before, and you didn't read the other posts of THIS EXACT SAME QUESTION, or you're an idiot.
Please, please, please. Stop asking this question. I've read so many responses to this, I'm almost an expert on low level routing protocols, completely against my will.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
NAT is an ugly hack. IPv6 will finally shred it.
If they get a few big guys like Google and Yahoo to favor IPv6 hosted content over IPv4 when it comes to page rank, I think you would see a mad scramble to IPv6 with customers placing a crushing amount of pressure on their providers to get them a presence on IPv6. Not sure if I understand it right, but I *think* its not too difficult to serve content on both address spaces simultaneously?
Having a bookmark to Google does not make you an expert on everything.
a lot of those crazy kids are reading this now. This particular crazy kid has tried to implement into a large company and the effort involved (IT, management, outside vendors, etc) was so enormous I have now withdrawn from active network management. It will be an absolute Shit Storm.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Seriously, every cell phone and IP-enabled kitchen appliance out there does not need a live IP address...
DON'T APNIC! Incredibly lame, I know...
your != you're
Conforms to the rule that grammar flames always contain grammatical errors.
Yeah, my Pentium says the same thing.
Local music(to upstate NY). http://gnarfel.com/ radio.
Said it before, say it again, you need to switch in hardware, not software.
The 6500 Supervisor 720 with MSFC 3 will do 225Mpps (Not enough) as opposed to the 450Mpps that it will do in IPv4 and the other thing that will do it in the Cisco space is the 4948-E which has only just come out. (Not a bad access switch BTW)
The only thing that would have the throughput that they need would be a Juniper 8216, while this has been around for 3 or 4 years, this wasn't available nor a proven tech when 21cn was in it's design phase.
So for all these people who say 'amazingly, the designs for a network upgrade they called "21st century network" didn't originally include IPv6 support...' it only takes a few seconds thought to realise that designing a network that large requires proven technology and takes a LONG time to design and think through.
So running with the assumption that their chief designers aren't complete idiots (And knowing a few people who work for BT doing design work, I would find it difficult to imagine their chief designers being morons) you would have to consider the idea that I'm sure that they considered it important, but there wasn't a proven technology to run with on day 1 to integrate into the network. The only option you really have at that point is when you are in negotiations later with the vendor of choice that you ensure that their later platforms which you use in their network will have the ability to support IPv6.
So stick your nose up at the network all you want, you design a network and put your job on the line for it and see whether you push for IPv6 on unproven tech or not....
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Come on, NAT is so widespread in China that you will not be surprised when you find you're actually four NATs away from the "Internet". The argument that NAT is a performance problem is completely bullshit in China. For the uninformed: the number of IPv4 addresses allocated to China is less than that of, say, UC Bekerley. You can barely satisfy half the netizens in Beijing with so many addresses.
Oh, and let's add in accounting of IPv6, management of associated devices, tech support, billing hassles and every other problem that they are going to have to face....
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Let me extend your list a bit...
3 - People that play games online (but not online games).
4 - People that want those intermediate nodes to be available for VoIP.
5 - People that use virtual LANs.
6 - People that use remote access (for support or for working).
I'm sure the list is way longer than that. Oh, and on that #1 there will be all people that have software that updates by P2P or use P2P for remote access control (way to break DRM). You know, you don't have to run bittorrent yourself to use the protocol. Numbers 3 and 4 are probably the majority of the users at the developed countries, and a big share on the developing ones. Number 5 and 6 are the majority of corporation users anywhere.
Rethinking email
You probably don't want your printers to be on a public address unless you like adverts. :)