IPv4 Will Not Die In 2010 264
darthcamaro writes "A couple of years ago, the big shots at IANA (that's the people that handle internet addressing) issued a release stating that the IPv4 address space was likely to be gone by 2010. Here we are in 2010 and guess what, IPv4 with its 4.3 billion addresses will NOT be all used up this year. In fact there could be another two years worth of addresses still left at this point. 'We're at about 10.2 percent (IPv4 address space) remaining globally,' John Curran, president and CEO of ARIN said. 'At our current trend rate we've got about 625 days before we will not have new IPv4 addresses available. We're still handling IPv4 requests from ISPs, hosting companies and large users for IPv4 address space, but that's a very short time period.'"
Re:What about the domain parking, tasting, sniping (Score:5, Informative)
Domain squatters and the like use one IP (and one server) for thousands and thousands of domains. They're parasites but they're not using anything like a significant fraction of the available IP space.
Re:Trends (Score:5, Informative)
In other news.... (Score:5, Informative)
IPX won't die in 2010, either.
But, in all seriousness, there's a few things to remember here.
1. The v4 address space will be exhausted in the foreseeable future.
2. Reclaiming large blocks only delays that inevitability by a few months.
3. With a few exceptions, modern, supported OSes (Windows [2003, 2008, Vista, 7], GNU/Linux, all of the BSDs, OS X) support IPv6 perfectly.
4. Most of the critical applications support IPv6 perfectly.
5. The big holdup on the consumer side has been with the ISPs. The DOCSIS 3.0 roll-out is ongoing in many places.
6. The US government has mandated it. The compliance date was in 2008 for all of the Federal agencies on their backbones. It's just a matter now of getting ISP access to those sites, and configuring lower-level systems.
The luddite attitude here about this is amazing. If you're really all that concerned about it, and don't want to focus too much on the nuts-and-bolts, here's some advice: Learn BIND. Setting up your resolvers properly will spare you headaches.
I use IPv6 every day. I get lots of e-mail over IPv6 (netbsd and freebsd mailing lists, to name just a couple). I enjoy being able to ssh to all of my machines at home directly. It's here. Evaluate your crap, and see what's not going to work. Plan to replace that stuff. Most of it probably will need replacing by the time you get assigned a /64 or /48 by your ISP, anyway. This isn't rocket science. /rant
Re:Guess we'll just going to have to have... (Score:1, Informative)
no it hasn't. In 2005 it was estimated to take 5-10 years. 2011-2012 is still spot on.
Say hello to isp-wide nat and sharing the same IP with dozens of users.
Re:Increase in domain value? (Score:4, Informative)
why can't all little-visited domains be on virtual hosts and share their IP address with many others?
Many can but as of right now if you want to use ssl/tls you pretty much need your own IP.
with ssl/tls the server does not have the http request at the time the connection is negotiated and certificates checked so it can't use the name from it to decide what certificate to present.
You can in principle have multiple domains on one certificate but it makes the certificate management far more of an administrative PITA (essentially the host would have to apply for a certificate on behalf of all the domains they host on an ip and get a new one every time a domain needed to be moved between machines)
There is a ssl/tls extention which tells the server which domain is being requested during the ssl handshake so it can send out different certificates for different domains. Unfortunately the built in ssl support in xp doesn't support it (both IE and chrome use the windows built in ssl support, firefox doesn't).
Re:In other news.... (Score:3, Informative)
IPv6 was a PITA on 2000 and XP. It is the default protocol on Vista, 2008, and 7. In fact, one of the original bugs in Exchange 2007 was that you couldn't install it *without* IPv6 being enabled on your public interface.
But, I disagree with your contention that bad experiences are why people shy away from it. I think for more people, it's the nastiness of the stateless addresses. "But I can remember 192.168.0.1 in my head!" Yeah, and you can remember the four numbers in your /64 prefix, too. You're just not trying hard enough.
Re:Could last another 10 years... (Score:3, Informative)
They can't sell em, at best they can go into the ISP business with them.
Re:IPv4 doesn't die (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (Score:3, Informative)
You can use IPv6 and IPv4 at the same time, for instance one of my sites:
www.ev4.org has address 213.165.238.250
www.ev4.org has IPv6 address 2001:bd0:100:0:1::3
The ipv4 address is shared (http/1.1 virtual hosting), but the ipv6 address is dedicated to that one site.
The US government requires that any routing equipment must *support* ipv6, but not that it be used...
We need governments, the ip registries and domain registries etc (basically anyone in a position to do so) to require that any internet accessible services are offered on both stacks, and for isps to be required to provide v6 connectivity at the same time as v4 (so people with modern equipment will end up using it without realising).
You have to grow the egg artificially before it will hatch into a chicken...
Re:Panic Averted - Resume Doing Nothing (Score:3, Informative)
And what makes you think ISPs won't charge per IP address on IPv6?
Well, by the current standards residential assignments in IPv6 will generally be allocated a subnet size of /48, /56, or /64 (out of 128) - see here [getipv6.info] for ARIN address plan. Given the fact that a subnet of one of those sizes will be required for even basic connectivity, the chances are that you will have a lot of v6 IPs included in the basic cost of your connection.
I have IPv6 at home and have a /48 allocation.
Re:IPv4 doesn't die (Score:2, Informative)
Re:DJB on the v6 mess (Score:2, Informative)
It's about routing.. (Score:4, Informative)
Storm
Re:IPv4 doesn't die (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Could last another 10 years... (Score:3, Informative)
Um, this is basic math. If we would have been giving out 5-10 /8s per week, we would have exhausted the complete range of addresses in less than a year. I don't think that happened back in the 90s.
Re:There's plenty of addresses left. Don't panic. (Score:3, Informative)
The IPv6 designers made a terrible mistake by not including backward compatibility with IPv4.
How, praytell, would they have gone about doing that?
IPv6 is a lot like Intel's Itanium processor. It's unclear right now whether the the anointed successor will gain ground or whether some IPv4 extension hack will come along and make fools of the IPv6 crowd. (Wait, what's the opposite of "crowd"?) BTW, I'm using a x86_64 processor right now, like most people.
Sorry. Try again. The first Itaniums had IA-32 compatibility. Later ones do not. And AMD did some incredibly stupid things with x64, which are becoming rapidly apparent as time goes along. I'm guessing you haven't noticed. But the reason Microsoft has an emulated 32-bit XP VirtualPC instance running for compatibility is that amd64 can't do vmm86 when running in 64-bit mode. Consequently, sixteen-bit applications can't run at all, natively. Sure, they run fine if you run the processor in 32-bit mode, but then you still are stuck with PAE for >4GB memory, and there's no way to directly access 64-bit registers (which you can do on IA-64, Sparc64, and POWER). I'm not saying amd64 isn't without its merits, but, backwards compatibility sure ain't one of them.