Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Businesses Technology

ARIN Letter Says Two More Years of IPv4 266

Posted by timothy
from the no-more-mister-nice-registry dept.
dew4au writes "A reader over at SANS Internet Storm Center pointed out a certified letter his organization received from ARIN. The letter notes that all IPv4 space will be depleted within two years and outlines new requirements for address applications. New submissions will require an attestation of accuracy from an organizational officer. It also advises organizations to start addressing publicly accessible assets with IPv6. Is ARIN hoping to scare companies into action with the specter of scarce resources? This may be what's needed to spur adoption since there appears to be no business case for IPv6 deployment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ARIN Letter Says Two More Years of IPv4

Comments Filter:
  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:28PM (#27779263) Homepage

    When IPv6 was announced, one of the benefits was that everything could have its own IP address; even your toaster!

    So as for a business case, what about the internet toaster business? If we don't switch to IPv6, what will they do?

    • With this junk IPv4 toaster?
    • by shadow349 (1034412) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:54PM (#27779653)

      So as for a business case, what about the internet toaster business? If we don't switch to IPv6, what will they do?

      They can receive bailout funds from the stimulus bill under the guise of a "smart power grid" appliance.

      You think I'm kidding, don't you?

      • by timeOday (582209)
        Bailout and stimulus are different things, but I am all in favor of networked appliances to cut down on energy costs. I would start with heat, AC, and fridge rather than toaster though. I would like to get an email from my appliances each month saying how much power each one is using, since a broken appliance can end up running around the clock and wasting power.

        At some point I would also like to get a plug-in hybrid that can talk to the power grid and charge up when energy is cheapest, which may be som

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You can already get all that with the right kind of power meters you install at the outlets in the house.

          But the important question is are you ok with sending all that data to the government run power company?

          Do you want them knowing what appliances you have, when you use them, etc? And do you really think they will be able to resist selling that information to marketing groups, or giving it up to the authorities?

          Now combine the ID with RFID tags in product packaging...

          Just imagine the email you might get:
          "

    • ISP like comcast will love to make you pay $5/m per system on top of $30 - $50 /m fee.

    • When IPv6 was announced, one of the benefits was that everything could have its own IP address; even your toaster!

      Wait a minute... Is IPv6 just a clever marketing scheme for NetBSD?

  • by madbavarian (1316065) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:29PM (#27779267)

    Nothing gets fixed until it breaks so fully that people can't ignore it any longer. ARIN should just hand out the last of their IP assignment already and then we can move on with actually deploying IPv6.

    • by SnarfQuest (469614) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:36PM (#27779365)

      Just do a HDTV conversion. Give a specific date when IPV4 support will be dropped, then extend the date when the timeout gets close.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        A nit, I know, but DTV conversion had little to do with HD...

        That's partially why so many idiots were confused.

      • by jibjibjib (889679)
        Unlike the TV situation, there's no central authority which can stop people from using IPv4.
    • There are a number of corporations and organizations that own /8's

      Here is a list [iana.org]

      Here's a few from the list:

      003/8 General Electric Company
      004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
      008/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
      012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories
      013/8 Xerox Corporation
      015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company
      016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation
      017/8 Apple Computer Inc.
      019/8 Ford Motor Company
      034/8 Halliburton Company

      Seriously... why does Ford Motor company need a /8?

      The US government also owns a whole bunch of /8's

      Instead of hogging these, they should just give them up. They don't need all these addresses.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:04PM (#27779761)

        Seriously... why does Ford Motor company need a /8?

        They've been keeping it in reserve for a rainy day.

        Do you know how much a /8 is worth in today's market? It could pull Ford out of its financial problems!

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by jd (1658)

          Nah. Ford already uses most of their /8 in assigning each nut and bolt in each of their cars its own IPv4 address.

        • by Blue6 (975702) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:30PM (#27780113)
          A lot of the companies that have class A networks had them issued before CIDR. Also don't underestimate the size of some of these networks. Ford has a half dozen datacenters spread out around the world thousands of VOIP phones, Desktops / Laptops, routers, switches, AP, servers. Not to mention most modern manufacturing plants PLC's run on a IP network sure you will never use the whole space but do you really think they are going to re-IP a network that size. Ford also owns a class B network :)
          • by Bandman (86149) <bandmanNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:37PM (#27780225) Homepage

            And there's absolutely no reason that those devices can't be assigned an address from the 10.x portion of RFC 1918. None at all, except for the magnitude of the problem.

            They should have planned for that so, so long ago.

            • What about when companies merge, or otherwise have to connect networks? Two companies using 10.x could have overlapping IPs.

              • by Kaboom13 (235759)

                What about when companies merge, or otherwise have to connect networks? Two companies using 10.x could have overlapping IPs.

                Holy shit, so the network admins will have to do their jobs? It's not like just patching two completely different networks together makes a whole lot of sense anyways.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            ..do you really think they are going to re-IP a network that size.

            If given proper notice that they will be losing the class A license, then I'm sure they would. There is almost no justification for a corporation to have public IP addresses for VOIP phones, Desktops, Laptops, and many network components (switches, routers, etc) which strictly reside on their internal network.

      • by morcego (260031) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:13PM (#27779865)

        IBM used to use 9.0.0.0/8 address for their internal network. Computers that didn't have access to the internet or anything.

        This was back in 1995, so I can't guarantee it is still true, but it is likely.

        • They still used the 9. network when I worked there in 2008, so I doubt that anything has changed.

        • IBM used to use 9.0.0.0/8 address for their internal network. Computers that didn't have access to the internet or anything.

          If they're not connected to the Internet, then what does it matter?

          And why 9.0.0.0/8?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by aynoknman (1071612)

        Seriously... why does Ford Motor company need a /8?

        They need it so they can sell it when they go into Chapter 11

      • by timeOday (582209) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:42PM (#27780305)
        It's like land - what was initially given away to ranchers and farmers in vast swaths will now be sold back to us in ever-smaller and more expensive blocks.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:55PM (#27780507)

        Go ahead, yank 'em all back. Worldwide, the five RIRs (AfriNIC, ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, RIPE) go through 12-14 /8s per year. Don't give yourself a charley-horse patting yourself on the back because you managed to move out the exhaustion date by 8 months.

        BTW, the US Government *gave back* several /8s.

        IPv4 is terminal. Get over it and get your IPv6 on.

      • Instead of hogging these, they should just give them up. They don't need all these addresses.

        "Should"? Why exactly should they?

        I thought America was the land of Capitalism, and as good capitalists of course they will keep them until the address space runs out, then make big bucks reselling the unused chunks.

      • Here's a few from the list:

        [snip 10 /8s]

        OK, that takes care of 4% of the IPv4 address space. What's your next great idea?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iris-n (1276146)

        +5 Insightful again?

        Can't we just let this die? There are plenty of unused IPv4 addresses, sure. Most are hard to get due to political problems. No company will re-IP all their network just out of goodwill. So what?

        The sooner IPv4 addresses end the better. Any quantity that is salvaged is just delaying the inevitable, and hurting IPv6. We could be in a much better infrastructure today if it wasn't for all this whining and "business case"ing.

        So what that these companies can make a buck selling the addresses?

      • by sl3xd (111641) *

        Or, given the number of them that are tech companies, it could be that they are "hogging" them to increase pressure to move to IPv6... because they believe moving to IPv6 is the "right thing" to do.

        Sure, it'll piss off the MCSE's who still struggle with IPv4 and think that NAT is a firewall, but the rest of the world won't really care. Vista, OS X, Linux, and *BSD all support IPv6 out of the box now, as do most browsers. IPv6's stateless autoconfig is a beautiful thing.

        All the ISP's have to do is start ro

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jgtg32a (1173373)
          Most of them don't just support it most look for an IP6 address and then fail to IP4
  • by kevmeister (979231) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:39PM (#27779409)
    I just got back from the ARIN meeting this week and the letters are, indeed, a "scare tactic". Network providers keep reporting that PHBs won't spend any money on IPv6 even though engineers are begging for it. Most corporate officers probably think IP is only Intellectual Property and this is an attempt to draw their attention to the fact that the network world as they know it is going to end soon and that the only way to avoid serious problems is to either stop growing or to start IPv6 deployment. PHBs sometimes get the idea when they realize that not spending some money will lead to big problems in a few years. Others figure that if it's over a year away, it really does not matter because it won't impact their bonus this year, so it may not work, but we can hope.
    • by jd (1658)

      That makes sense, but really they would be better off just saying to customers "sorry, we have no bananas today" and telling them that they can get a great deal on IPv6 addresses instead.

      (If the PHB's need to know more, IPv6 is like the GruntMaster 5,000 - including all necessary wormholing technology.)

    • Others figure that if it's over a year away, it really does not matter because it won't impact their bonus this year, so it may not work, but we can hope.

      Emphasis mine. Don't they think about next year's bonus too?

      I don't know about you guys, but my attitude to work is this: do good work that's valuable to your employer for a reasonable compensation, and prefer to do The Right Thing(tm) when justifiable.

      Do PHBs have a different attitude?

  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:40PM (#27779427) Homepage Journal

    I want IPv6 support, but there are lots of pieces still not in place. I am actually using Miredo (Teredo implementation) when I am on the move and Sixxs when I am at home. These are more stop-gap solutions and until the necessary entities start allowing to get on board properly.

    My parents live in France and they are with Free.fr who offers IPv6 as a standard option. On the other hand I am living in Canada and not one of the service providers offer IPv6 in any shape or form. One questioned about it they blame their up-stream provider. Even if they are ready the only IPv6 ready router for the home is the Apple Airport Extreme, and even then there is a blocker issue for connecting to Sixxs.net (Apple's bug). Linksys, D-Link and Buffalo are still not ready with a public release and you are left trying to see if the version of DD-WRT you need for IPv6 supports your router. Chances are you will be looking at eBay for a router that has enough flash to support it.

    Like the Swine Flu outbreak, I get the feeling that few entities are going to be rushing to do any work until there is media frenzied panic.

    There is no killer application for IPv6, since its just infrastructure. On the other hand the lack of a NAT can make certain application solutions easier to implement, since you don't need to do any NAT busting or other fancy tricks. Of course since internal addresses are now all routable, you will certainly need to make sure that you have a real firewall on the gateway device.

    Once you are on IPv6 you can start playing around with IPv6 torrent and http://ipv6.google.com/ [google.com] , if you are curious.

    • by jd (1658)

      IPv4 is still gaining features that should have been in place to start off with. IPv6's biggest selling point is that it's designed to be retrofitted, whereas IPv4 is not.

      Besides, if people were forced to use IPv6, how long do you REALLY think it'll take for the network companies to finish the protocol? A weekend at most, at this point. They're dragging their feet because R & D sees this as a cash cow they can milk forever if they never actually complete anything.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mellon (7048)

      There is no killer application for IPv6, since its just infrastructure.

      Not true, and you mentioned the killer app in the very next sentence: end-to-end connectivity. Having real, working end-to-end connectivity is a big deal, but most people don't know it because they're accustomed to living on a network where there is no end-to-end connectivity.

      So if you want to see more IPv6 deployment, start developing apps on top of Miredo/Teredo that really make use of it. When there's enough encapsulated IPv6 runn

  • by wandazulu (265281) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:40PM (#27779435)

    ...because whoever is in charge of it does such a crummy job of explaining what it is and why I should care, and more importantly, why my folks should care.

    I got my router set up to use IPv6 (an Apple Time Capsule), and I went searching for some IPv6 love and found practically none. Yes I got to Google, and yes I found a few websites that seemed to do little more than blink(!) "hooray, you are connecting using IPv6! Your address is ..."

    IPv6 needs both a killer app (IPv6-only Twitter, anyone?) and some ready-to-explain-why-you-can't-get-to-it documentation that will get the people to *demand* that they have IPv6 addresses.

    Until then, it's a 32-bit address space world.

    • by jd (1658)

      There's apparently free porn on offer in New Zealand for those who are using IPv6 as an incentive to switch.

    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      IPv6 killer app... how about video-on-demand phone calls that appear on your TV set?

      TVs are becoming internet-enabled, if each could be addressable, then you could add a webcam and use it as a scifi-style video phone, for free calls anywhere in the world.

      You could also have your ISP push programmes to your set-top box instead of you going and fetching them.

      The only 'killer apps' I can think of that'd make sense are for entertainment purposes; that are your ISP refusing to connect you to the internet because

    • by compro01 (777531)

      . [ipv6experiment.com]

    • by compro01 (777531) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @07:01PM (#27780595)

      I have your killer app right here [ipv6experiment.com].

    • IPv6 is depressing, because whoever is in charge of it does such a crummy job of explaining what it is and why I should care, and more importantly, why my folks should care.

      Actually, I would claim that that's not a big deal. The big problem is that IPv6 just doesn't provide a sensible migration path from IPv4. The idea that we're all going to wake up one day and switch off IPv4 at once just doesn't cut it. More precisely, an IPv4 node just has no way of talking to an IPv6 node. If we built some sort of

    • IPv6 needs [...] a killer app

      And if I own the killer app, can you please explain to me why I don't offer it over via IPv4 also, and multiply my ad revenue by $BIGNUM?

      Maybe if I'm someone like Mark Shuttleworth who is willing to gamble money on cool technology with a hope (but no certainty) of making it self-sustaining (or possibly breaking even).

      But there are only so many of those people.

    • Killer app (Score:3, Interesting)

      by coryking (104614) *

      I'd argue there is never going to be a killer app for IPv6 because it is nothing more than window dressing on the same old, boring protocols. The true killer app will be on a protocol that is nothing like TCP/IP... say a working mesh protocol where there is no notion ports, IP addresses or any of that nonsense. Where you don't care where the data you get comes from as long as it is authentic. That is the future. Bit torrent is the closest we have to that future and bit-torrent is nothing but a hack of

  • by afabbro (33948) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:41PM (#27779443) Homepage

    Case [slashdot.org] in point [slashdot.org]. Thought it was supposed to be 2010? Now it's 2011.

    IPv4 addresses won't magically be exhausted one night. They'll just start getting more expensive.

  • by wowbagger (69688) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:43PM (#27779479) Homepage Journal

    As I keep pointing out on each IPv6 story, there will be little motivation to move to IPv6 until you can hit major sites, like cnn.com and slashdot.org, using nothing but IPv6 packets.

    We've made a bit of progress, in that now, if you have IPv6 connectivity to "the Internet", you can in theory do the name resolution entirely by IPv6 packets, now that the root name servers support IPv6.

    Note to the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" crowd: yes, you can form an IPv6 packet with an IPv4 address, but that doesn't mean the target machine will actually be able to understand it - it is still a completely different packet type than an IPv4 packet.

    So, does slashdot.org have IPv6 enabled? Does the colo housing slashdot.org's servers route IPv6 packets from the Internet to the slashdot.org servers? Can "the Internet" route IPv6 packets to the colo?

    If a tech site like slashdot.org doesn't have the ability to handle IPv6 traffic, then why should I get all hot and bothered about trying to get IPv6? And if I'm not going to demand it, then why should my ISP spend the effort to supply it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ceiynt (993620)
      Exactly. Just like the conversion from radio to television. Once enough stuff started to get snipped from the radio, like a lot of the serials and soaps, and started to be put on television, television took off. Start making Yahoo.com and Google.com junk with IPv4, and advertise on the page why you get such crappy service and why they should upgrade, in plain enough English to the non-tech people to understand. Then wait a few years for OEM computer to ship with IPv6 compliant NICs, and offer rebates or wha
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by gbjbaanb (229885)

        Start making Yahoo.com and Google.com junk with IPv4

        so *that's* Microsoft's plan to get some users for their search engine!

        • by Bandman (86149) <bandmanNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:44PM (#27780325) Homepage

          I'm not sure you could get the tail to shake the dog like that.

          Those sites are important because they are easy to use and good at what they do (ok, Google is, anyway).

          Users typically follow the path of least resistance. If Microsoft Live Search was the only search engine available to people who had ipv4 and ISPs were still only handing out /32 addresses, guess which search engine those people would use.

          Of course, that wouldn't happen, because Google and Yahoo would retain their /32 addresses, because they're businesses designed to get money, not force social or technological change.

    • by grumbel (592662)

      As I keep pointing out on each IPv6 story, there will be little motivation to move to IPv6 until you can hit major sites, like cnn.com and slashdot.org, using nothing but IPv6 packets.

      That is never gonna happen, because enabling IPv6 for major sites has zero advantages and will break plenty of stuff. With IPv6 it isn't a "you have it" or "you don't have it" thing, for lots of consumers its a "you kind of have it, but routing is pretty broken" thing, meaning half the servers out there will not be reachable over IPv6, even if both parties have IPv6. And since plenty of software out there does the "clever" thing to default to IPv6, this means servers that worked before on IPv4 will no longe

  • by robpoe (578975)

    I can get IPV6 from my co-lo provider, but my server control panel (Plesk) doesn't support it ..

    So I can serve up "You see this page because you just installed Apache" ... in IPv6..

    (wooo!)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:56PM (#27779675)

    How about they take back the Class A address space owned by companies who probably aren't even utilizing it. Here's a list of a few companies who have class A licenses and you wonder how much of it they are even using:

    General Electric 3.0.0.0 - 3.255.255.255
    IBM 9.0.0.0 - 9.255.255.255
    Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 13.0.0.0 - 13.255.255.255
    Hewlett-Packard 15.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255
    Hewlett-Packard (originally DEC, then Compaq) 16.0.0.0 - 16.255.255.255
    Apple Inc. 17.0.0.0 - 17.255.255.255
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology 18.0.0.0 - 18.255.255.255
    Ford Motor Company 19.0.0.0 - 19.255.255.255
    Royal Signals and Radar Establishment 25.0.0.0 - 25.255.255.255
    Halliburton Company 34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255

    Why the hell do some of these companies even need 16+ million addresses? I can't see them utilizing the space available, but maybe someone here can enlighten me on how that is done (aside from trying to justify a public IP address for every workstation).

    • by Bandman (86149)

      They missed the RFC 1918 [faqs.org] memo

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by azrider (918631)

      Why the hell do some of these companies even need 16+ million addresses?

      Can't answer to the others, but IBM uses it's address space for all of it's equipment worldwide (desktops, labs, wireless, etc). All of the equipment is accessible via internal LAN's for each and every building IBM is in (and access can be had via VLAN if approved). The others may have similar needs.

      • by againjj (1132651)
        And they can't use 10.0.0.0 because ...? And can't use 9.0.0.0/9 because ...? And HP needs two /8s because ...? And these companies should get (not "do get") preferential treatment because ...?
    • a public IP address for every workstation

      Yeah, that's right. Even if they're on a private LAN, or firewalled to hell, all the workstations are using legitimate public IPs. And back in the olden days, when most of these companies bought their blocks, if you needed more IPs than a class B there was no other option. Remember, NAT was still a long ways from being trivial to implement back then.

      And it's not just workstations. I imagine for Ford, all their assembly robots have their own IP addresses. You'd need a few thousand IPs per factory. Simi

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by againjj (1132651)

        How about they take back the Class A address space owned by companies who probably aren't even utilizing it

        Sure you can say "they don't need them", but so what. They've been purchased. You can't just take back their address space.

        Actually, the addresses are not "owned" by the companies. They are just allocated. So, theoretically, ARIN could deallocate them. The problem is that people would object and file lawsuits; besides, ARIN has no way to enforce the deallocation of addresses, as ARIN could simply be ignored. If that happened, you now have more than one machine per address, which is bad. Besides, it would only postpone the inevitable, and not by that much.

        So, the proposal won't work because it would be a lot of work, be

    • by drmerope (771119) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @07:12PM (#27780749)
      Right. Most people are sitting on unaddressable addresses. The ANT census [isi.edu] is pretty explicit on this point. Roughly 4% of the IPv4 address space is in use, 30% is not allocated at all, and the remainder (66%) is trapped due to inefficient allocations.
    • How about they take back the Class A address space owned by companies who probably aren't even utilizing it. Here's a list of a few companies who have class A licenses and you wonder how much of it they are even using:

      How would they take it back, after having sold it?

      Should Russia just take back Alaska, because some time back they sold too much land too cheaply?

      I'm afraid that giving somebody too much of something and regretting it years later doesn't entitle you to get it back.

  • by volxdragon (1297215) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:57PM (#27779687)

    ...wait, didn't they say the same thing then??!?

  • by Marrow (195242) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:40PM (#27780267)

    If we had a measurement that said that only 25% of the entire address space is in use at any one time, then maybe would would rethink our choices.

  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:46PM (#27780375) Homepage Journal

    I have 6 IPs just for personal use. Every big networking company that controls some portion of the Internet is set for IPv4 space for a while. There just isn't room for anyone new to enter into the market. This is a huge advantage for those already established companies. I don't think they intentionally planned it this way, but the scarcity of address is a short term advantage for too many businesses for us to simply ignore that and keep pushing IPv6 as if is of some automatic benefit to everyone. Don't get me wrong, I would be thrilled if Comcast and others moved me over to IPv6. Maybe with a massive address space scanning IP blocks for SSH logins and open firewalls would no longer be as a productive use of botnet time.

  • by mrstrano (1381875)

    Actually I've just read a report from Netcraft that shows that IPv4 is dying!

  • economics as usual (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shentino (1139071) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @07:31PM (#27780991)

    Again, the problem is hoarding of unused IPv4 addresses.

    We'd be just fine if it weren't for folks like MIT that have way more IP's than they need.

    Of course, when a resource gets tight, the folks who have it become kings. You can bet your behind no company is going to give up it's v4's without a fight.

    I'm glad that IPv6 is based upon a stewardship model rather than an ownership model. And also that the v6 guys are leaving 87 percent of the potential v6 namespace unallocated

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by davburns (49244)
      No, the problem is that we really do need more address space. IP addresses include identification information and network topology information. We really do have almost that many computers, and almost that complex of topology.

      Forcing the holders of large legacy allocations to give them up would hurt more than moving to IPv6, and it'd only get us a few more years of IPv4 growth. Opening up the class-E space would also hurt more than moving to IPv6, and still only give us a few more years.

      NAT effective

  • The problem is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SecurityGuy (217807) on Friday May 01, 2009 @11:11AM (#27787239)

    ...they keep saying that in $SMALL_NUM years we'll be out of IP addresses, and $SMALL_NUM years goes by without incident. The sky persistently fails to fall.

    Call it the peril of poor predictions, but I'm now officially not worried because the claims have so often been false.

% A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back the when it begins to rain. -- Robert Frost

Working...