Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Networking

At Current Rates, Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses 460

Posted by timothy
from the so-last-decade dept.
An anonymous reader excerpts from an interesting article at Ars Technica, which begins "There are 3,706,650,624 usable IPv4 addresses. On January 1, 2000, approximately 1,615 million (44 percent) were in use and 2,092 million were still available. Today, ten years later, 2,985 million addresses (81 percent) are in use, and 722 million are still free. In that time, the number of addresses used per year increased from 79 million in 2000 to 203 million in 2009. So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address[es]. (Even if he doesn't get re-elected.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

At Current Rates, Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses

Comments Filter:
  • Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:07PM (#30635740)

    Can we start the discussion by not immediately going to the "NAT will save us" argument? Just accept that while NAT deployments might put it off, IPv6 deployment is inevitably necessary.

    • ::1 (Score:5, Funny)

      by sakdoctor (1087155) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:09PM (#30635768) Homepage

      I've already got MY ipv6 address.

    • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Informative)

      by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:23PM (#30635860) Journal

      No, not really. There's companies with whole fucking /8 [iana.org] that have no real purpose to own them, but they've just always had them:

      003/8 General Electric Company 1994-05 LEGACY
      004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY
      008/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY (two /8's ?)
      009/8 IBM 1992-08 LEGACY
      013/8 Xerox Corporation 1991-09 LEGACY
      015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 1994-07 LEGACY
      016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 1994-11 LEGACY
      017/8 Apple Computer Inc. 1992-07 LEGACY
      019/8 Ford Motor Company 1995-05 LEGACY
      034/8 Halliburton Company 1993-03 LEGACY
      044/8 Amateur Radio Digital Communications 1992-07 LEGACY
      045/8 Interop Show Network 1995-01 LEGACY
      047/8 Bell-Northern Research 1991-01 LEGACY
      048/8 Prudential Securities Inc. 1995-05 LEGACY
      052/8 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 1991-12 LEGACY
      053/8 Cap Debis CCS 1993-10 LEGACY
      054/8 Merck and Co., Inc. 1992-03 LEGACY
      056/8 US Postal Service 1994-06 LEGACY

      Just get rid of the companies that are reserving such huge spaces without having a real reason to do so, other than that they were there to reserve them in start of 90's. Also US and UK army and defence and other ministers have several /8, but why really? Other countries do just fine without too.

      • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by growse (928427) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:30PM (#30635934) Homepage
        So we go through a huge difficult, expensive process to save us, what? A couple of years? Why bother?
        • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:42PM (#30636030) Journal

          Seeing the state of IPv6 and how many devices still don't support it, I think thats a pretty good idea. That being said, IPv6 support should be fully done in new devices, OS and programs already, because you need to give some time for old devices too so they can still work under IPv4.

          But on another thing, I really doubt we are just a few years ago from IPv4 addresses going out of stock. There's still many /8 unallocated to anyone, most ISP's still give their users 5 ip addresses on home lines and from most hosting companies you can buy new ip's for $1-3 per piece. If we will be running out of them, we will first see hosting companies upping their prices and home ISP's limiting how many IP's they give to customers. And that will come far before we're actually out of address space.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by petermgreen (876956)

            we will first see hosting companies upping their prices and home ISP's limiting how many IP's they give to customers. And that will come far before we're actually out of address space.
            That depends on what the IANA and the RIRs do. with thier policies over the next few years.

            Right now IMO the sane policy for an ISP is to allocate as many IPs to customers as they can get away with, that way they can "justify" getting new IPs from the RIR. When the final squeeze comes with no new IPs availible from the RIRs th

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by mysidia (191772)

              the ISPs can then claw back IPs from less lucrative customers and give them to more lucrative ones.

              There's a term for that, it's called: Fraud. And I hope ARIN counts on that it will happen. I'm sure policies are already being considered as we speak, to provide for auditing of ISPs to validate compliance with the Registry Services agreements the ISPs signed.

              It's a violation of the ARIN agreement ISPs have to sign, to give a customer more IP addresses than they have justified need for, just because you

          • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Informative)

            by Z00L00K (682162) on Monday January 04, 2010 @02:37AM (#30638020) Homepage

            I'm still waiting for ISP:s to offer IPv6.

            As soon as the ISP:s starts to offer IPv6 it will be easier in general to use and develop for IPv6

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by gmuslera (3436)
          Inertia could make your car crash even if you started to turn when saw the danger. A few meters more could be the difference between your life or death.
      • by tehdaemon (753808)
        According to the article (which I haven't read yet BTW) all those /8's listed total what, 18 months worth of addresses? And the legal battles to get them will take how long?

        T

      • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Informative)

        by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:41PM (#30636012) Homepage Journal

        No, not really. There's companies with whole fucking /8 [iana.org] that have no real purpose to own them, but they've just always had them:

        The block you listed contain a total of 301,989,888 addresses. At 2009's rate of 203 million addresses per year, returning those blocks would buy us less than 18 months. Big whoop.

        Also, some of those companies actually do make significant use of the addresses they have. For example, I happen to know that IBM uses a good chunk of the 9.0.0.0 space.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I happen to know that IBM uses a good chunk of the 9.0.0.0 space.

          For what? Do all their PCs have public IPs?

          Where I work has an entire class B and all of our PCs are public and we're talking now about NAT'ing them all, for security reasons. Once upon a time this would have been a nightmare because all of our devices have static IPs, but now we have a process to easily map in MAC addresses of authorized devices into a DHCP address so they all get their own IP.

          What I'm saying is, once upon a time having

          • I also know first hand IBM uses a lot of 9.0.0.0/8 today and that the world would have to do something drastic to make them change their usage as it isn't cost-effective from their standpoint unless they can save/get a large chunk of change.

            Now, you'd think that means these devices are publically accessible, but noooo. If 99% of their '9.x.x.x' equipment that does have internet access attempts a connection, it gets NATed outbound to a different address entirely! So they sit on a mountain of globally addre

            • by metamatic (202216)

              Now, you'd think that means these devices are publically accessible, but noooo. If 99% of their '9.x.x.x' equipment that does have internet access attempts a connection, it gets NATed outbound to a different address entirely!

              Depends on the IBM site. Some use NAT and/or a proxy, but the sites I've worked at in the US don't. In fact, the NATted sites are a source of technical issues internally, exactly as you'd expect.

              [Opinions mine, not IBM's.]

            • by Stile 65 (722451)

              GE's use of their 3.0.0.0/8 is exactly the same way. All their devices have public IP addresses, and they're all NATed at the firewall anyway - even for some internal communication. The NAT doesn't cause too many problems at most of the sites I've worked with (except one, getting that firewall migrated was a bitch and a half) but it's a huge waste of IP space.

              Same goes for many of the customers of my former employer with full /16 blocks, too. Absolutely no reason for most companies to have that much if you'

          • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Informative)

            by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @09:06PM (#30636268) Homepage Journal

            I happen to know that IBM uses a good chunk of the 9.0.0.0 space.

            For what? Do all their PCs have public IPs?

            At present, yes. Also their phones. But the employees' PCs are a fraction of IBM's computers. Keep in mind that IBM runs large data centers all over the world.

            Yes, were IBM to go through a very large and expensive network restructuring to move many of the internal networks to NAT, they could probably give a few million addresses back. Maybe as many as 15 million. And at the 2009 rate that would buy us 26 days.

            Where I work has an entire class B and all of our PCs are public and we're talking now about NAT'ing them all, for security reasons.

            That's silly.

            There's no security value to NAT. NAT does provide a stateful firewall that disallows inbound connections, but you can do that just as well without NAT, and with a great deal more flexibility.

            • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Informative)

              by Jonner (189691) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @09:42PM (#30636488)

              There's no security value to NAT. NAT does provide a stateful firewall that disallows inbound connections, but you can do that just as well without NAT, and with a great deal more flexibility.

              Thank you for pointing that out. So many people seem to think NAT is a security tool. I think it's because just about any router capable of NAT also has a stateful firewall (since NAT requires tracking of connections) and many people don't understand the distinction.

            • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:4, Insightful)

              by rantingkitten (938138) <kitten@mirrorshad[ ]org ['es.' in gap]> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @11:25PM (#30637108) Homepage
              There's no security value to NAT. NAT does provide a stateful firewall that disallows inbound connections, but you can do that just as well without NAT, and with a great deal more flexibility.

              You can. I can. Aunt Myrtle can't. I for one am glad that most home users are behind NAT these days. It's better than nothing. Unfortunately, it does tend to cause issues with SIP, which is my industry, but I've learned to live with that.
              • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Insightful)

                by demonlapin (527802) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:42AM (#30637566) Homepage Journal

                You can. I can. Aunt Myrtle can't.

                And - let's face it - neither can most of /.'s users. I remember setting up an OpenBSD firewall back in the late 90s, and I did most of my firewall rules configuration by copying someone else's rules. I tweaked them for my specific needs, but there's no way I'd have come up with them on my own. Unless you are a real network admin, you are unlikely to be able to set this up properly.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY
        008/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY (two /8's ?)

        That's due to the acquisition of BBN who was the contractor that did a lot of initial ARPANET work. (The original defense contractor role of BBN was later spun back out and is now part of Raytheon but the network assets stayed with Genuity and then later Level 3) They also have the AS number "1", which gives them some severe old-school bragging rights.

        Those assignments really aren't that bad -- they're a major ISP and would have huge chunks of IP space regardless. At least 4/8 is largely delegated to cus

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by RalphSleigh (899929)

          Google run their public DNS on 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 so they are being used, this is probably because level 3 provide google with multicast on these addresses.

      • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @09:07PM (#30636270) Journal

        It'll be easier to give everyone a block of ipv6 addresses than it will be to take away legacy ipv4 allocations.

      • by fermion (181285)
        Another piece of useless trivia. When HP acquired Compaq which acquired DEC, HP apparently became the only firm with two consecutive "/8".

        It might have been 3, but Compaq was never awarded a block. I never understood why that was. Compaq was certainly the major player in the early 90's.

        In any case the IPv6 seems to implemented in all major OS(I don't know if it has fully support in Windows 7), so I suspect we will be transitioned within a couple years.It is like telephone numbers. In the US we are up

      • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mcrbids (148650) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:02AM (#30637332) Journal

        Let's say that you get all these companies to give up ALL their addresses. You've postponed the problem by about 18 months! Whoopee!

        The thing is, technology tends to grow logarithmically, which is why we have things like Benford's Law [wikipedia.org]. The problem shouldn't be being solved now, while we're at the 90% level, the problem should have been solved long ago, back when we were at about the 10-20% level, because the actual halfway mark as a function of time is somewhere near 20-25% completion!

        That IPV6 has been bungled so bad is a consequence of the Second System effect [wikipedia.org] and perhaps a bit of design by committee [wikipedia.org].

        In any event, IPV6 fails to solve a couple of fundamental problems:

        1) Piss poor backwards compatibility. This was even acknowledged publicly in a recent news article. [networkworld.com] It's not only not poorly backwards compatible, it just basically ISN'T backwards compatible. Want to talk to an IPV4-only resource from your IPV6-only address? You basically have to have some fancy trickery with NAT and DNS in order to do this - it isn't straightforward, and it requires coordination with the IPV4 resource. And the reverse is even worse!

        2) Un-necessary complexity in implementation. Partly as a result of #1, implementing IPV6 will be costly, and will require expensive "transition tools" in order to work smoothly. But it's not just because of lack of backwards compatibility - issues such as strange hardware requirements (what... no MAC address?) and the like make the cost of implementing high. Sure, it's not that expensive per device, but multiply that by the entire Internet, and the problem becomes a bit more clear.

        3) No net positive for implementing! You don't get "more" for implementing, you get "less". Some stuff that used to work won't, and other stuff that you need to work just isn't there. Sure, Yahoo and Google support IPV6, which is great for the 50 or so people who are on it. But, if anybody cares, it's on IPV4.

        4) Tragedy of the Commons: The address shortages don't affect anybody who's already on the 'net. I have an IP address or two already. I don't care if *you* run out, I only care if *I* run out. So, I really don't much care about you so long as I get mine. That's called the "tragedy of the commons" - a common resource is exploited as quickly as possible by people who are motivated to get theirs before anybody else gets it, resulting in a destroyed public resource.

        IPV6 sucks. The engineers had their chance, and they blew it. Now it's too late to change it because we don't have another 5 years to committee another solution, and there is already a significant amount of inertia from those poor souls who have already implemented it! (at great cost)

        This is NOT going to end well.

        • by anti-NAT (709310)

          Helping solve the problem is much harder.

          Are you part of the problem, or part of the solution? If all you're willing to do is criticise, then I think you're part of the problem.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm sorry, your post is off on a number of points. Let me clarify things for you.

          The problem shouldn't be being solved now, while we're at the 90% level, the problem should have been solved long ago, back when we were at about the 10-20% level, because the actual halfway mark as a function of time is somewhere near 20-25% completion!

          The IPv6 specs were drafted in 1994 and mostly finalized in 1998. That 95% of the world still is on IPv4 is not due to the IETF's tardiness.

          1) Piss poor backwards compatibility. This was even acknowledged publicly in a recent news article. [networkworld.com]

          Yes, in hindsight, more backwards compatibility would have been nice. It might have made the switchover period less painful and would have avoided the Game-theory deadlock that has withheld IPv6 adoption.

          It's not only not poorly backwards compatible, it just basically ISN'T backwards compatible. Want to talk to an IPV4-only resource from your IPV6-only address? You basically have to have some fancy trickery with NAT and DNS in order to do this - it isn't straightforward, and it requires coordination with the IPV4 resource. And the reverse is even worse!

          Why do you bring up IPv6-only addresses? They don't (yet) exist, and the situation you'

    • Re:Don't say "NAT" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by causality (777677) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:29PM (#30635920)

      Can we start the discussion by not immediately going to the "NAT will save us" argument? Just accept that while NAT deployments might put it off, IPv6 deployment is inevitably necessary.

      It's not unreasonable to say that the increasing scarcity of a finite resource might put more pressure on all of us to utilize that resource more efficiently. Replacing the scarce resource (IPv4 with its 2^32 addresses) with one that is overabundant (IPv6 with its 2^128 addresses) is always an option, of course. But migrating to that option and more wisely using our existing resources are not mutually exclusive. So no, I don't recognize as invalid the discussion of NAT as a technique useful for mitigating this issue.

    • Pre-emptive strike (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fbjon (692006) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:38PM (#30635994) Homepage Journal

      "IPv6 addresses are too long and complicated to type"

      ...is like saying solar panels are too hard to build when you run out of slave labor in hamster wheels.

      "We don't need IPv6 since there is NAT"

      ...is like saying we don't need new energy solutions because beeswax candles are a tried and trusted technology.

      "The Internet will be overrun by zombies when NATs no longer protect us."

      ...is like saying avoiding antibacterial soap will cause untold misery and disease.

      "Just re-allocate some of the wasted space in Class A nets."

      ...is like saying overcrowding of the planet can be mitigated by decreasing the size of houses.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:07PM (#30635750)

    We'll never run out of IPv4 addresses. "Peak-IPv4" is a myth created by those who hate America and want Asia's IPv6 to take over. 4 octets forever!

    • by Zocalo (252965) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:34PM (#30635962) Homepage
      I know you are joking, but there is a very good reason why Asia is so keen on IPv6 adoption; they are going to feel the crunch first and they know it. IANA has in place an agreement that as soon as one of the RIRs is assigned one of the five final /8s each of the other four RIRs receives one of the remaining /8s and IANA washes their hands of the whole mess. That's without a doubt the most critical milestone along the path to IPv4 exhaustion, so let's look at that instant from the point of each of the RIRs:
      • AfriNIC: Incredibly slow burn rate. They're probably still good for another decade or two at this point.
      • APNIC: Includes China and India, two of the fastest developing nations on the planet with correspondingly high IPv4 assignment requests. There's no two ways about it; without wholesale IPv6 adoption, they're going to be the ones running out first.
      • ARIN: Capitalists to the end, they are on record as saying IPv4 exhaustion is not their problem to solve; it's first come first served and when they are all gone that's it. Even so, there are plenty of US institutions with /8s that could mostly be handed back and reassigned if push came to shove.
      • LACNIC: Not quite as low AfriNIC due to developing countries like Brazil, but are still able to sit back and let any problems with IPv6 get resolved before they make the leap.
      • RIPE: Have already got the strictest IP assignment policies of the RIRs and will probably just continue to tighten the screw right up until the point of exhaustion; LIR assignment windows are typically about one quarter of what they would have been five years ago. It's a pretty fair bet that APNIC and ARIN will both beat them to the wall.
      • IANA has in place an agreement that as soon as one of the RIRs is assigned one of the five final /8s

        You DO NOT talk about the final five. That is against your programming.
  • by GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) <almafuerteNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:10PM (#30635772)

    4 octets should be enough for everyone.

  • by haus (129916) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:14PM (#30635796) Homepage Journal

    It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      But I love reading this story over and over again about every 2 years. It'll happen any day now!! We pinky-swear!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by swillden (191260)

      It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled.

      At over 200 million new addresses needed per year, returning all of those class As wouldn't buy more than 2-3 years.

      • by schon (31600)

        At over 200 million new addresses needed per year, returning all of those class As wouldn't buy more than 2-3 years.

        That's great then - everyone knows that the world is gonna end in 2012, so it's not a problem!

    • by fm6 (162816) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:56PM (#30636174) Homepage Journal

      Do you think the current owners are hanging onto their address spaces out of pure spite? If they rely on the Internet to do business, this crisis hurts them more than anybody.

      This mess happened because of the simplistic addressing schemes that were implemented without taking into account the explosive growth of the Internet. One result is that that some early adopters ended up with Class A [tcpipguide.com] networks (16 million addresses) because they needed more than the 64 thousand addresses in a Class B network. Only one Class A space belongs to a university (MIT). (There used to be two, but Stanford gave its IP space back.) Other owners include Halliburton, Apple, IBM, and Xerox PARC. HP has two, counting the one that was originally issued to DEC. DoD has eight.

      Reassigning all these addresses would be a logistical nightmare, because you're changing the basic logic of network routing. Imagine all the routers that would have to be reprogrammed or replaced, and the expensive down time that would result. Much more cost effective to just go to IPv6 already. Plus there are other features of IPv6 we really, really need.

      Except that nobody's doing it. I used to work at Sun, where I kept suggesting that our embedded lights-out management system [sun.com] (all Sun servers have them) start supporting IPv6. The answer I always got was, "customers aren't asking for it." Which means that everybody is putting off this problem until the last minute. As usual.

  • Ah but nobody will take away the IPv4 address I got myself, 127.0.0.1 !

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:23PM (#30635856) Journal
    Anybody not paying for a business line will being going through so many layers of NAT in the near future that getting bittorrent to work will be quite difficult...
    • by klapaucjusz (1167407) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @09:46PM (#30636510) Homepage

      BitTorrent is already running over IPv6. Anyone running Torrent on a recent enough version of Windows automatically uses IPv6 to cross NAT boxes using a technology known as Teredo [wikipedia.org].

      The Free Software world is late with IPv6 adoption. In the words of one of the Torrent developers (Greg), "platforms which are not Windows [...] need to get their collective Teredo asses in gear."

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by klapaucjusz (1167407)
        That should read "muTorrent", both times. The Greek letter didn't get through, for some reason.
  • Commercial fusion power will be a reality in 20 years.
  • We've been hearing this for quite a while, and for some odd reason IPv6 isn't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings.

    We should not forget that within IPv4 space, reallocations do happen. Some organizations are AFAIK still sitting on routeable /8s for no good reason whatsoever, and possibly, maybe, some of that space will be redistributed one way or the other. Then of course those parts of the world that have actually switched to IPv6 are not likely to switch back (but you'd have to p

  • No real scarcity yet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bizitch (546406) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:28PM (#30635912) Homepage

    I just helped out a friend who lives in a remote rural section outside of Chicago. I tried for years and years to get her lit up on decent broadband service.

    Finally, we got a relay from a WiMAX provider --

    When I went to connect her broadband with a Cisco router - I discovered that she was assigned a FRIGGIN /27 of public numbers!! (i.e. she now personally burns 32 usefull IPV4's)

    I was gonna call their support ... but why bother?

    You never know if she's gonna need 30+ public ip numbers right? Just because she lives alone - she may get many friends real soon!

    • I take it she's on Clear?

      How does she like it?

      Bandwidth up and down? Ping times? Reliability?

      I've been looking to break free from the AT&T and Comcast duopoly and Clear's Wimax sounds just about right.

    • by sopssa (1498795) *

      Yep, that just tells that all of this "we are running out of ip addresses!" is just nonsense still, especially if ISP's are able to give 32 public ip's to a single home customer.

      • by Jonner (189691)

        I've never gotten more than on public address from any ISP for a residential account, whether dialup, DSL or cable. Have you? I think that's a pretty rare situation.

        • by sopssa (1498795) *

          My ISP gives 5 public ip's, but I know some give even more (like in GP's case too)

          • And 5 usable IPs likely means that they are allocating 8 for you. 1 for a gateway, 1 for the network address, and 1 broadcast IP.
    • by wagnerrp (1305589)

      I realize I am by far an extreme case, but in a house of four, I run one server, two mythtv frontends, one networked tuner, one networked POTS ATA, one game console, three WiFi access points, one networked printer, one networked RAID card, three desktops, four laptops, three internet capable phones, and a handful of other old machines that I occasionally bring online for various uses. That's 21 devices which could be using their own IP. Throw in half a dozen applications I'm running on the server which ea

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 03, 2010 @08:29PM (#30635916)

    I live in one of the most tech-focused parts of the country (downtown San Francisco) and as far as I can tell there's no way for a normal consumer to order native (i.e. not tunneled) IPv6 here.

    When I moved to my current apartment in 2004 I specifically went with Speakeasy because they were talking about rolling out IPv6 to customers. Over 5 years later, those plans are still stalled as far as I can tell. None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me - I'd love to switch to an IPv6-capable provider.

    I've pretty much concluded that IPv6 just isn't going to happen -- instead providers will just force all of us normal people into shared IP addresses. From a technical perspective this isn't hard to do: just move the software that's currently running in your home NAT router onto the DSLAM and only provide a NATed view. For the ISPs there's no downside to this since not only can they avoid rolling out IPv6, it means they have complete control of your network connection.

    I bet in 10 years we still won't have IPv6 in our homes, and the idea of having your own IP address (even a dynamically allocated one) will just be a memory. It's a shame.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by swillden (191260)

      None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it.

      Comcast is planning to start deploying residential IPv6 this year. They haven't said how long it will take for a full rollout to all of their customers, but if they do get there, that will be a significant chunk of the US residential market that has native IPv6.

  • ... we won't run out, because more and more of the addresses in use will also become available, and as ipv6 uptake accelerates, ipv4 uptake will dramatically decelerate, and it will stop just shy of actually running out.

  • ... can't get a DHCP address .... Film at 11.

    • by Jeremi (14640)

      ... can't get a DHCP address .... Film at 11

      The Film at 11 has been cancelled, because the television's NAT gateway wasn't configured properly.

  • Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses

    They (vested interest groups) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what, we haven't run out yet.

    • by compro01 (777531)

      We managed to slow it down via massive use of NAT and the RIRs tightening the requirements to get blocks of address space.

  • The Mayans were right about 2012!
  • > So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address

    When Bush left, there was still plenty of IPv4! Shame to you, Obama.

  • So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address[es]. (Even if he doesn't get re-elected.)

    So if we change the Constitution to extend the President's term of office to eternity, we'll be OK? No election, no problem.

  • by Junta (36770) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @09:12PM (#30636310)

    There are so many ways IPv6 remains broken and too many of the people with influence can tend to say 'working as designed'.

    I know that's controversial, so I'll enumerate my pain points:
    -DHCPv6 DUID is a pain to 'pre-provision'. When any operating system or firmware instance dhcpv6 for the first time, it sends out something that you'll never know what it would be ahead of time. In 99% of cases, the DUID is a generated value at 'OS Install time' that is used only for that specific OS, and a reinstall or livecd boot will change it out completely. stateless boot, multi-boot systems and multi-stage booting (i.e. pxe -> os) cannot hold together a coherent identity because DHCPv6 is explicitly designed not to do that. Binding by MAC is considered 'evil', but it has been the strategy used for ages. I wouldn't mind so much if DUID was commonly implemented as a value retrieved from motherboard firmware tables, but no one is stepping up to drive that behavior in a spec visible to all parties.

    No PXE/bootp boot. I believe they are trying to reinvent, from scratch the boot design from IPv4, and are nearing completion. I fear the extent to which the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater (i.e. 'root-path' was dropped and no one has pulled it into dhcpv6).

    Some standards are missing the capability to operate in IPv6. I.e. IPMI hase some IPv4 specific portions of the standard without IPv6 capable equivalents.

    • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday January 03, 2010 @11:17PM (#30637068) Homepage Journal

      Why use DHCPv6? I much prefer stateless autoconfiguration. I was amazed at how well it works. The first time I fired up the radvd daemon on my home gateway (which is using a tunnel broker service to get v6), I was amazed at how every device on the LAN instantly had v6 access, with no action whatsoever on my part.

      I don't have any comment on PXE/bootp. Haven't looked into that in the v6 world. It seems like v6 should make that trivial, though. Just pick a standard reserved local suffix to hold the boot service. The booting device should wait for a router advertisement to find out what network it's on, append the standard suffix and open a connection to get boot code. Done. That's just off the top of my head, of course.

  • I know of one organization, for example, that was originally awarded 11 Class C's. These are permanently assigned. One Class C was used to knit together nine routers (That's all.) Another was assigned to a branch office that had five PCs, one hub, and one router. Later they added an IP-addressable copy machine and printer, so that's nine IPs hard coded out of one Class C. When their main office got a little crowded they did manage to subnet this Class C into two and swipe half of it away, but overall I thin

  • by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @11:10PM (#30637034) Journal
    So, an address might look like:

    1h2.tyj.56j.0as

    I think that would solve the problem permanently.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday January 03, 2010 @11:43PM (#30637220) Homepage

    ...is to go back to UUCP bang addresses. Pathalias can handle routing.
    --
    ihnp4!stolaf!bungia!foundln!john

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...