What makes you think they would want to sell into what is obviously about to become a marketplace shocked by sudden scarcity? What, were you planning to slap them with a punitive "windfall asset" tax or something if they don't give up their legacy address grants? I can't WAIT to see the reaction *that* RFC.
Neither of my grandmothers care what I think. (They've both been dead for 30 years.)
If your grandma wants to know what I think, tell her to plan on upgrading both her computer and her first-mile provider service in the next couple years, or she can expect her monthly Internet bill to go up accordingly.
Staying IPv4-only is just plain going to cost more in the long-run than moving to IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack. That's a stark, inarguable fact. People can complain all they want, but it won't do any good for them. 32-bit numbers are a finite resource, and pissing and moaning about it won't make the IPv4 address field grow new bits out of thin air.
...I'm sure Google's price-per-search will be pretty low...
Over IPv4. Over IPv6, they'll still be able to do the location tracking the old-fashioned way without playing stupid address realm games. And because I've personally got IPv6 connections for myself everywhere I care about already, I doubt I will care much when Google starts micro-charging IPv4-only users for searches.
And I won't have much sympathy for the people don't like being nickle-and-dimed for searches but can't bother to run a modern IP stack on a modern network that provides IPv6 service.
Pretty much. Either that, or they give up on targeting by fine-grained location. If the money is there, I've no doubt they'll do it. If not, then they'll find something else to do with their gear.
I'd sympathize, really I would, but I don't have any capacity for sympathy with the motherfuckers in the advertising service business.
No, the end of network neutrality is going to kill off most of the content providers. And, coincidentally, drive most of the surviving megafauna into closer integration with carrier network operations. Which is sorta my point.
It does mean they can track the activity of individual subscribers based on the public IPv4 address and the TCP/UDP port used at the time of the activity. Which means that pirates have no reason to rejoice here—their activity is just as discoverable behind LSN as not, so the original poster is sadly mistaken.
Haven't you heard? The IAB has known for decades that the default-free zone is continually making new IPv4 addresses as a natural function of the BGP protocol. The reason you've never heard about it is the evil telecom companies control the media and the NRO, and they don't want you to know the truth.
Yeah, well, the only one of those devices that needs a globally routable address on the Internet is your SIP phone. Early adopters get to be early upgraders.
The way it was explained to me: the mobile broadband people are planning to upgrade their networks to IPv6-only, but there's a raft of IPv4-only applications that run on the handsets that cannot be abandoned, because they're deemed to be critical, and also cannot be upgraded, because the copyright ownership is in limbo. So they need to insert either a NAT46/DNS46 layer into the OS on the handset, or they need to insert a tunnel with encapsulation headers that go over the wireless medium. They think the former is the superior approach over the latter.
Of course, I tell them to abandon the IPv4-only applications on the handset and rewrite them all from scratch, but they look at me like I'm a state terrorist or something. So okay, I say, I guess they have a need for NAT somewhere. Sucks to be them.
p1. IPv4 doesn't need to be "saved" from any kind of calamity. It's doing just fine, thank you very much.
p2. The transition to IPv6 is probably going to need some NAT64 and DNS64 magick at some point. Not everybody is going to be well-served by running dual-stack hosts and networks. I've heard that some mobile broadband providers are looking at various kinds of NAT tricks to keep IPv4 marginally functional for legacy applications on IPv6-only networks without resorting to expensive tunnel encapsulation mechanisms.
p3. Repeat after me: IPv4 is fine. It will still continue to work just the same as it does today after the last address is allocated by the last registry. It just won't be growing anymore, but that's fine. It doesn't need to grow. That's why we have IPv6, which can grow for at least another century before there might conceivably be a problem.
p4. So globally routable IPv4 addresses will soon start getting more expensive (and the future value of an address is already hard to predict). That was always going to happen. It's not like there's any surprise here. But look on the bright side, you have TWO ways to get your IPv4-only private network reachable over IPv6: A) transition to IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack network or B) deploy a NAT-PT gateway. (Okay, I'm cheating here. I know that only one of those two will ever make any economic sense, but I'm trying to be nice.)
p5. IPv4 is doing fine. Go back to sleep. There's nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the geeks behind the curtain. You don't want to know what they're doing anyway. Probably something weird and unsavory, right? Go back to sleep. IPv4 is doing fine. Stop worrying. It's okay.
More accurately, you and your 1000 neighbors will be splitting 64Ki between you at the carrier-grade NAT, and you can forget about port leasing, because they aren't implementing it.
The original article actually points out the real problem that the headline misrepresents. The real problem is that the Obama administration is almost comically clueless about Internet engineering issues related to governance.
p1. The census shows that population growth doesn't account for the growth in income inequality. So, if you're wondering about it, you can look it up yourself. I'm not doing your homework.
p2. clang_jangle wasn't complaining about income inequaltiy per se, just that the USA he/she grew up in— which had qualitatively much less income inequality— no longer exists. The USA he/she lives in now has about the same level of income inequality as the one that existed prior to the New Deal reforms of the 1930s.
These are the facts... I'm not telling you what to make of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I use a ridiculous hack like upnp to beg the nat device for a forward?
The large-scale NAT that ISPs are deploying now do not implement any kind of port forwarding, so you can just forget all about that now.
What makes you think they would want to sell into what is obviously about to become a marketplace shocked by sudden scarcity? What, were you planning to slap them with a punitive "windfall asset" tax or something if they don't give up their legacy address grants? I can't WAIT to see the reaction *that* RFC.
Easy there, speedy... first, you're going to need an OTC market.
I'd like to see you try.
Neither of my grandmothers care what I think. (They've both been dead for 30 years.)
If your grandma wants to know what I think, tell her to plan on upgrading both her computer and her first-mile provider service in the next couple years, or she can expect her monthly Internet bill to go up accordingly.
Staying IPv4-only is just plain going to cost more in the long-run than moving to IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack. That's a stark, inarguable fact. People can complain all they want, but it won't do any good for them. 32-bit numbers are a finite resource, and pissing and moaning about it won't make the IPv4 address field grow new bits out of thin air.
...I'm sure Google's price-per-search will be pretty low...
Over IPv4. Over IPv6, they'll still be able to do the location tracking the old-fashioned way without playing stupid address realm games. And because I've personally got IPv6 connections for myself everywhere I care about already, I doubt I will care much when Google starts micro-charging IPv4-only users for searches.
And I won't have much sympathy for the people don't like being nickle-and-dimed for searches but can't bother to run a modern IP stack on a modern network that provides IPv6 service.
Google has production IPv6 service now...
Pretty much. Either that, or they give up on targeting by fine-grained location. If the money is there, I've no doubt they'll do it. If not, then they'll find something else to do with their gear.
I'd sympathize, really I would, but I don't have any capacity for sympathy with the motherfuckers in the advertising service business.
No, the end of network neutrality is going to kill off most of the content providers. And, coincidentally, drive most of the surviving megafauna into closer integration with carrier network operations. Which is sorta my point.
I wrote "address realm" and you somehow managed to read "routing domain" instead. How am I supposed to respond?
It does mean they can track the activity of individual subscribers based on the public IPv4 address and the TCP/UDP port used at the time of the activity. Which means that pirates have no reason to rejoice here—their activity is just as discoverable behind LSN as not, so the original poster is sadly mistaken.
The size of the address field turned out to be the limiter on IPv4 growth. With IPv6, it may turn out to be something else.
They just move the ad servers into the carrier address realm. Nice try, though...
Haven't you heard? The IAB has known for decades that the default-free zone is continually making new IPv4 addresses as a natural function of the BGP protocol. The reason you've never heard about it is the evil telecom companies control the media and the NRO, and they don't want you to know the truth.
Yeah, well, the only one of those devices that needs a globally routable address on the Internet is your SIP phone. Early adopters get to be early upgraders.
Jumping the gun on this thread, aren't you? Nobody is arguing for large-scale IPv4/NAT out of a security consideration.
All the LSN implementations I know about are carefully engineered to comply with CALEA, so um, no. Try again.
The way it was explained to me: the mobile broadband people are planning to upgrade their networks to IPv6-only, but there's a raft of IPv4-only applications that run on the handsets that cannot be abandoned, because they're deemed to be critical, and also cannot be upgraded, because the copyright ownership is in limbo. So they need to insert either a NAT46/DNS46 layer into the OS on the handset, or they need to insert a tunnel with encapsulation headers that go over the wireless medium. They think the former is the superior approach over the latter.
Of course, I tell them to abandon the IPv4-only applications on the handset and rewrite them all from scratch, but they look at me like I'm a state terrorist or something. So okay, I say, I guess they have a need for NAT somewhere. Sucks to be them.
p1. IPv4 doesn't need to be "saved" from any kind of calamity. It's doing just fine, thank you very much.
p2. The transition to IPv6 is probably going to need some NAT64 and DNS64 magick at some point. Not everybody is going to be well-served by running dual-stack hosts and networks. I've heard that some mobile broadband providers are looking at various kinds of NAT tricks to keep IPv4 marginally functional for legacy applications on IPv6-only networks without resorting to expensive tunnel encapsulation mechanisms.
p3. Repeat after me: IPv4 is fine. It will still continue to work just the same as it does today after the last address is allocated by the last registry. It just won't be growing anymore, but that's fine. It doesn't need to grow. That's why we have IPv6, which can grow for at least another century before there might conceivably be a problem.
p4. So globally routable IPv4 addresses will soon start getting more expensive (and the future value of an address is already hard to predict). That was always going to happen. It's not like there's any surprise here. But look on the bright side, you have TWO ways to get your IPv4-only private network reachable over IPv6: A) transition to IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack network or B) deploy a NAT-PT gateway. (Okay, I'm cheating here. I know that only one of those two will ever make any economic sense, but I'm trying to be nice.)
p5. IPv4 is doing fine. Go back to sleep. There's nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the geeks behind the curtain. You don't want to know what they're doing anyway. Probably something weird and unsavory, right? Go back to sleep. IPv4 is doing fine. Stop worrying. It's okay.
For the win.
More accurately, you and your 1000 neighbors will be splitting 64Ki between you at the carrier-grade NAT, and you can forget about port leasing, because they aren't implementing it.
portforward.com
You also can't PingOfDeath a machine that has an IP stack implementation written or updated in the last ten-plus years. Your point?
The original article actually points out the real problem that the headline misrepresents. The real problem is that the Obama administration is almost comically clueless about Internet engineering issues related to governance.
p1. The census shows that population growth doesn't account for the growth in income inequality. So, if you're wondering about it, you can look it up yourself. I'm not doing your homework.
p2. clang_jangle wasn't complaining about income inequaltiy per se, just that the USA he/she grew up in— which had qualitatively much less income inequality— no longer exists. The USA he/she lives in now has about the same level of income inequality as the one that existed prior to the New Deal reforms of the 1930s.
These are the facts... I'm not telling you what to make of them.