Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

IPv4 Free Pool Drops Below 10%, 1.0.0.0/8 Allocated 467

Posted by kdawson
from the pure-water dept.
mysidia writes "A total of 16,777,216 IP address numbers were just allocated to the Asian Pacific Network Information Centre IP address registry for assignment to users. Some venerable IP addresses such as 1.1.1.1 and 1.2.3.4 have been officially assigned to the registry itself temporarily, for testing as part of the DEBOGON project. The major address blocks 1.0.0.0/8 and 27.0.0.0/8, are chosen accordance with a decision by ICANN to assign the least-desirable remaining IP address ranges to the largest regional registries first, reserving most more desirable blocks of addresses for the African and Latin American internet users, instead of North America, Europe, or Asia. In other words: of the 256 major networks in IPv4, only 24 network blocks remain unallocated in the global free pool, and many of the remaining networks have been tainted or made less desirable by unofficial users who attempted an end-run around the registration process, and treated 'RESERVED' IP addresses as 'freely available' for their own internal use. This allocation is right on target with projected IPv4 consumption and was predicted by the IPv4 report, which has continuously and reliably estimated global pool IP address exhaustion for late 2011 and regional registry exhaustion by late 2012. So, does your enterprise intranet use any unofficial address ranges for private networks?" Reader dude_nl sends in a summary of the issues with allocating from 1.0.0.0/8 from the BGPmon.net blog. "As Alain Durand mentioned on Nanog: 'Who said the water at the bottom of the barrel of IPv4 addresses will be very pure? We ARE running out and the global pain is increasing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPv4 Free Pool Drops Below 10%, 1.0.0.0/8 Allocated

Comments Filter:
  • AnoNet (Score:5, Informative)

    by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:03PM (#30883244) Journal

    AnoNet [wikipedia.org] is one of those who use 1.0.0.0/8 for private VPN because everyone thought it wouldn't be in use. I am pretty sure there are A LOT of organizations and other services who do too.

    anoNet is a decentralized friend-to-friend network built using VPNs and software BGP routers. anoNet works by making it difficult to learn the identities of others on the network allowing them to anonymously host content and IPv4 services. Assuming that a router administrator on such a metanet knows only information about the adjacent routers, standard routing protocols can take care of finding the proper path for a packet to take to reach its destination. All destinations further than one hop can for most people's threat models be considered anonymous. This is because only your immediate peers know your IP. Anyone not directly connected to you only knows you by an IP in the 1.0.0.0/8 range, and that IP is not necessarily tied to any identifiable information.

    To avoid addressing conflict with the internet itself, the range 1.0.0.0/8 is used. This is to avoid conflicting with internal networks such as 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16, as well as assigned Internet ranges. As of January 2010 IANA has allocated 1/8 to APNIC.[1] If the service does not switch to another address range then Internet hosts using 1.0.0.0/8 will be inaccessible to AnoNet users.

  • by jhoegl (638955) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:07PM (#30883276)
    What will happen will be the standard that us humans have followed throughout the ages.

    We will wait until the IPv4 addresses run out and then force businesses to start using IPv6 if they want to get on the internet.
    There will be a temporary boon for networking manufacturers as companies will have to change their equipment
    As a side curiosity, I wonder how many public IPv4 IPs are actually in use.
    • by causality (777677) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:16PM (#30883358)

      What will happen will be the standard that us humans have followed throughout the ages. We will wait until the IPv4 addresses run out and then force businesses to start using IPv6 if they want to get on the internet. There will be a temporary boon for networking manufacturers as companies will have to change their equipment As a side curiosity, I wonder how many public IPv4 IPs are actually in use.

      Unfortunately I think you're right. We are a very reactive culture, generally. We don't seem to believe in using foresight to ease predictable and inevitable suffering of any kind. I suspect that's because there is a great deal of political power and quick money to be had in crises when people are desperate and afraid, but not so much in preparedness and prevention.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by 0123456 (636235)

        We are a very reactive culture, generally. We don't seem to believe in using foresight to ease predictable and inevitable suffering of any kind.

        Because it's usually more expensive and difficult than dealing with problems when they actually become problems.

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:53PM (#30883764)

          Amen to that.

          The fact is, we've been preparing for the IPv6 switch for years now. The IPv6 spec reserves space for the entire IPv4 network, making translation between the two a snap. Any modern OS less than 5 years old has IPv6 built in, including conversion between v4 and v6. Almost all commercial networking hardware sold in the last 5-10 years is IPv6 capable, and as I already said using IPv4 within IPv6 is a piece of cake.

          The only issue here is going to be the fighting between registrars over address blocks, and that's nothing new. Private addressing with NAT doesn't even need to change if you don't want to bother with it, just change your gateway IP's from v4 to v6 and there you go, bandaid applied until you actually truly need to upgrade everything.

          The whole uproar over this issue is silly. It has already been taken care of. Hell it was half taken care of in the IPv6 spec itself, and the rest by the router and switch vendors that have been putting the option in their equipment over the last decade. At worst there will be some minor pains to actually enable and configure the IPv6 capable equipment, and those using really old equipment will have to upgrade their gateways. Those like AnoNet who improperly used IPv4 addresses in the first place are going to have to come up with something else until the switch is finally thrown on IPv6, and that's entirely their own fault. By definition they were not supposed to use those addresses, and they've been bitten for it. Sucks to be them.

          The IPv4 problem isn't 1/10th the problem people seem to think it is. The only reason it hasn't been done yet is because it is quite a bit cheaper to spend no money at all than it is to spend a little money for no immediate gain. Companies will spend the money to switch when they need to, and not a moment before; as long as we still have 10% of the addresses unassigned or reserved, there is no need to spend the money yet.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anpheus (908711)

            Not just any modern OS, the BSDs, *nixes, and Windows all have IPv6 support going back a decade. I'm not sure about the classic Mac OS, though.

            • by toddestan (632714) on Monday January 25, 2010 @12:19AM (#30885894)

              Well, you can put a little asterisk next to Windows as XP cannot do DNS lookups over IPv6, which is kind of a big problem if you want to browse the internet using just IPv6 in XP. I kind of doubt Microsoft is ever going to fix this, as this will end up forcing a bunch of people off of XP if the switch ever happens.

          • by butlerm (3112) on Monday January 25, 2010 @02:25AM (#30886658)

            The IPv6 spec reserves space for the entire IPv4 network, making translation between the two a snap

            That reservation is more or less a joke. It is great (in principle) if you want to send a packet from an IPv6 host to an IPv4 host. But how does the IPv4 host send a reply back? The short answer is, it can't. It can't because there (obviously) is no static mapping of IPv6 addresses to IPv4 address. There is no way to cleanly fold 128 bits into 32.

            That means that there are only three basic ways for IPv4 hosts and IPv6 hosts to interoperate: v4v6 network address transation (NAT), application layer gateways (ALGs), and dual stacks. Presumably, the main point of IPv6 is to avoid NAT, so v4v6 NAT is a relatively undesirable solution. Application layer gateways for every external communication protocol are even more problematic. That leaves dual stacking, which is a way of solving the IPv4 IPv6 interoperability problem by conceding the plain truth - that IPv4 and IPv6 are not interoperable and never will be.

            The only way to avoid NAT or ALGs is for every last Internet connected device on the planet to be dual stacked. That is going to take at least a decade. There will probably be lots of strange NAT and ALG solutions in between.

            The more interesting question is if there were a market for IPv4 addresses, such that organizations had a significant economic incentive to renumber and minimize the number of IPv4 addresses they used (and the size of the routing tables necessary to reach them) how long could we survive on the current system? I would guess a half century at least.

            Given the likelihood of this sort of economically motivated renumbering effort once centrally allocated blocks of IPv4 addresses run out, at what point does the overhead of the necessary network address translation outweigh the cost of administering a parallel IPv6 network that reaches nearly every device on the planet, in addition to the IPv4 network that is already there and which must remain there indefinitely (down to the level of each individual PC) in the absence of all the alternative v4v6 NAT and ALG devices we are trying to avoid in the first place?

            Essentially IPv4 has a defective design, and IPv6 has exactly the same defect, with a slightly larger address space. Slightly because hierarchical allocation will use up those initial 64 network addressing bits in a big hurry. IPv6 is no more than a stop gap for a some sort of variable length address (VLA) scheme, the only alternative that that isn't essentially an exercise in planned obsolescence.

    • by Jarik C-Bol (894741) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:55PM (#30883788)
      your right, because if we had been thinking ahead at all, we would have fully switched to IPv6 by now. personally, I'm surprised we 're not having a new Y2K-esque freak-out over this already. (heck, more effort was put into the digital TV switch than seems to be going into IPv6 switch).
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tnk1 (899206)

        The reason that there will likely be no freak out is that this problem will only affect providers and anyone who wants to get a new routable IP after the IPv4 addresses run out. That is a much smaller group than everyone in IPv4 space and it is a group that is more likely to have an understanding of what needs to be done internally. They aren't going to need to hire COBOL experts to fix their banking code to prevent it from breaking by a certain hard and fast date.

        For the people who continue to use IPv4,

    • by Dadoo (899435) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:58PM (#30883810) Journal

      I actually called my ISP last week and asked if I could get an IPv6 address. They told me Cisco said they won't have to worry about it for at least a couple of years, so they (my ISP) haven't even started thinking about it, yet. I guess they're going to wait until the last IPv4 addresses run out and have a mad rush to assign IPv6 addresses. That'll be fun...

    • I don't know (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @08:26PM (#30884048)

      There has been an increasing amount of IPv6 support out there. Part of the problem in terms of going IPv6 right away is that many of the high end routers out there accelerate IPv4 but don't accelerate IPv6. Basically when you deal with large amounts of data, it is infeasible to do everything in software. So you have ASICs to help speed everything up. Works great, but said ASICs have limits to what they can do and being hardware, can't simply be reprogrammed. This means you have to buy new hardware to support IPv6, which is of course expensive.

      We had that situation on the campus I work on a few years ago. Some people were wanting IPv6 but we didn't support it. Technically, it could be enabled and run on the routers' CPUs but that would only work if a few people used it. If usage got higher, the routers would crash under the load. We needed new routers (or more properly new supervisor modules for them) to support it. However, it was really expensive, a few million for all of campus. That money was not going to be spent just so people could play with IPv6.

      However, we've had to upgrade the routers anyhow to support more traffic and such, so now they have IPv6 hardware and IPv6 is routed on campus.

      Thus I think you'll see this continue to happen. New hardware supports IPv6, companies will get it, and will then be able to support IPv6 no problem. It just won't be an immediate process. They aren't going to go and buy IPv6 hardware just to get IPv6 support if they don't need it. However, when they need new hardware anyhow, the stuff they get will have IPv6 support.

      I think we are more likely to see a gradual change. More and more networks will start supporting IPv6, and people will start using it because it'll be cheap. An ISP will say something like "Well sure, you can buy IPv4 addresses for $10/month each, however your account includes more IPv6 addresses than you can ever use for free anyhow." So people will start using it.

    • by rtb61 (674572)

      Something else will also happen, business with lots of IPv4 addresses, available for hire, will do everything they can to fend of IPv6, corporate lobbyists, marketing lies etc. Why, obviously as new addresses become unavailable they can significantly via artificiality induced scarcity ramp up the price and profit margins.

      On the other side, the shear number of IPv6 addresses means that every network connected device can have it's own unique IP address hard coded at the factory, specific for the region whe

  • I seriously read that as Dagobah

  • No (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dunbal (464142) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:09PM (#30883302)

    They'll never take my 127.0.0.1 away from me, dammit!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sopssa (1498795) *

      You don't probably have anything to worry about, but the owner of 69.69.69.69 is probably sweating about his leetness.

      $ host 69.69.69.69
      69.69.69.69.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by mustafap (452510)

        My favourite address is 70.85.67.75

        I've tried for ages but I've never been able to get it.

  • 1.2.3.4! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:12PM (#30883322)

    Thats the IP address of my luggage.

    • Re:1.2.3.4! (Score:4, Funny)

      by GIL_Dude (850471) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:47PM (#30883692) Homepage
      Obviously you say that in jest (and I laughed). However, I was once on a shuttle back to the hotel from a Microsoft event with several representatives of some of Microsoft's large customers when some crazy guy was trying to convince a rep from a major airline that they needed to re architect their luggage system to assign an IPv6 address to each bag. This guy was serious about it too. My buddy and I just kept cracking jokes at his expense though.

      If you leave your bag unattended its time to live might expire.
      When the luggage system backs up, it sends a source quench.
      What do you mean "no route to host"?
      My luggage was fragmented!
      Can't your luggage route around the storm?
      and many more...

      It was one of the most enjoyable bus rides I've ever had.
  • by obarthelemy (160321) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:14PM (#30883342)

    numbers and car plates.

    I'd love to have 1.1.1.1, or 29.09.19.69 (my bday)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:32PM (#30883524)

      or 29.09.19.69 (my bday)

      So if you had your Social Security number as an IP address, what would it be?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Rich0 (548339)

      Only issue with that is how the routing system works. Routers are incapable of keeping track of where every single individual IP is located on the internet. Instead they just get announcements for very large networks, and then as the packet gets closer to its destination it can be tracked with greater and greater granularity.

      Dynamic DNS is a much better approach - it separates the implementation of the naming and the routing functions.

      I have no idea how the phone system manages to handle number portabilit

  • Why are some IP addresses more desirable than others? They are just numbers after all.

    • by srussia (884021)

      Why are some IP addresses more desirable than others? They are just numbers after all.

      Same thing with domain names. They're just letters, after all.

    • Re:Desirable? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mysidia (191772) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:26PM (#30883470)

      A good example of an undesirable IP address is one that's on a bunch of spam blacklists.

      Some IP addresses are more likely to have connectivity issues than others.

      One major issue improper or poorly maintained filters, that effects most address blocks that were previously not being assigned from equally, hence the DEBOGON projects and testing.

      There are more insidious issues that only effect some blocks, however.

      For example the guerilla usage of "1.0.0.0/8" by AnoNet, and "5.0.0.0/8" by Hamachi, plus private use of those, and other ranges instead of proper RFC1918 addresses by some enterprises.

      Makes hosts that use those IP addresses more likely to have communication problems with other hosts on the internet, just because their IP address is in that block.

  • by mrboyd (1211932) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:16PM (#30883366)
    I seriously doubt that GE, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, HP, Apple, MIT, Ford, AT&T (again), Halliburton, Bell, Prudential securities, UK government Department for work and Pensions, Dupont de Nemours and Co., Inc, Merck, USPS and some others deserve or need a /8.
    • Even if you could recoup some of these addresses, this would only afford a few months of use, so it's not going to be worth the effort.

    • by Trolan (42526) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:23PM (#30883424) Homepage

      And for each of those /8s, you buy maybe 1.5-2 months more time until v4 exhaustion. Most of those /8s were also allocated prior to any policies permitting reclamation. Any recovery of them would involve legal wrangling, which would be expensive and time consuming. Prolonging the end result isn't a viable solution to the problem, when the solution is available now.

    • by compro01 (777531)

      And after all the kicking, screaming, hair-pulling, knock-down drag-out legal battles to reclaim those blocks, you buy a grand total of about 18 months.

      It's not worth it.

    • by wumpus188 (657540)

      You can have my 127/8 when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, you insensitive clod!

    • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:40PM (#30883618) Homepage

      This has been addressed time and time (and time) again. a) Those organizations would have to defrag their IP space before large blocks could get released, a process that's slow, intensive, and expensive. But more importantly, b) even if they did that, and then release those blocks for reallocation, at the current rate of consumption, it'd buy us, what? 18 months? Two years at the outside? Meanwhile, global routing tables would get even *larger*, and they're already gigantic.

      No, reallocating unused IPs is a total fucking waste of time. That time would be *far* better spent getting IPv6 deployed so we could all move on from this mess.

  • I guess it's ICANN or ARIN that forces audits and demands accountability of usage of address space. Who are some of the big targets for recovery? Apple should be target numero uno with the entire 17.x.x.x class A. I know my college used a lot of 143.88.x.x as live ip's for every work station and wifi-connected laptop that happened to come along. No, that's not a lot, but just an example of the waste that goes on.
    (Now i'm going to be flamed by the "NAT is just a crappy hack/workaround" crowd.) Oh well.

    • It is a crappy hack/workaround, but it works right now. At some point I know I'm going to have to switch, but for now, well, I'll happily use NAT with port forwarding to make my services available.

    • by compro01 (777531)

      The problem with that is the the issuing of IP space back when a lot of those were handed out have no provisions for auditing, use accountability, or reclamation. That means you're looking at a long ugly legal battle, and even if you do win, you buy a little less than one month per /8 reclaimed.

  • by bbn (172659) <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:20PM (#30883394)

    Run this script to get your own IPv6 address today:


    CUR_IP=(`ip -4 addr show ${CUR_DV} | awk '/inet / { print $2 }' | sed -e 's/^\(\([0-9]\{1,3\}\.\)\{3\}[0-9]\{1,3\}\).*$/\1/'`)
    IPV6_ADDR=$(printf "2002:%02x%02x:%02x%02x:%04x::%04x" $(echo "${CUR_IP} ${SLA_INTF} ${INTF_ID}" | tr '.' ' '))

    ip tunnel add tun6to4 mode sit remote any local ${CUR_IP}
    ip link set dev tun6to4 up
    ip -6 addr add ${IPV6_ADDR}/64 dev tun6to4
    ip -6 route add 2002::/16 dev tun6to4
    ip -6 route add ::/0 via ::192.88.99.1 dev tun6to4 metric 1

    Install radvd if you want to share your new IPv6 subnet with other people on your local network.

    This is all it takes. You do not need to wait for your ISP to get a clue.

    Only problem is this does not work with NAT.

  • by kju (327) * on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:23PM (#30883428)

    So, what? Some idiots have abused reserved or otherwise unused netblocks for their internal networks. I honestly couldn't care less. I have seen this before, even with other blocks which were already in use. It is a very bad practice. Unfortunately there is only one way people might stop doing this: Allocate the blocks now. If users won't be able to reach certain sites, the admin might change the internal addresses. Or they might not. Who cares? No, really: Who cares?

  • by Nicolas MONNET (4727) <nicoaltiva@gmaiGINSBERGl.com minus poet> on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:24PM (#30883442) Journal

    From the beginning of IPv6, something was missing: the possibility for IPv4 only hosts to reach IPv6 only hosts. The solution is a form of nat, called NAT64, but a few months ago it was just a vague proposal AFAIK. As long as this is not solved, the transition to IPv6 *cannot* work. There is a simple reason: the planned transition involves ALL hosts talking both IPv4 and IPv6. When you speak both, inevitably the least used IPv6 is not supported well, and people end up using only IPv4.

    It's so obvious, I find it shocking it's not taken into account more seriously.

    • NAT64 so obvious, I find it shocking it's not taken into account more seriously.

      It was actually a part of the initial design for IPv6 -- see Section 5 of RFC 1710, or all the stuff about "translation from IPv6 to IPv4" in RFC 1883. It just somehow fell out of the specifications during the standardisation process.

    • by paskie (539112)

      NAT64 actually does not solve that, it concerns only the IPv6->IPv4 part, not vice versa. A more general mechanism NAT-PT has been proposed at the dawn of IPv6, but its status has been changed to historic by RFC4966 as it turns out that this is not really easy to get right.

    • by bbn (172659) <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> on Sunday January 24, 2010 @08:15PM (#30883956)

      NAT between v4 and v6 has been deprecated.

      The solution is dual stack. Each machine will have both a v4 and a v6 address. The v4 address will be subject to NAT. The v6 will be used because you need it for peer to peer traffic such as voice over IP.

      People without dual stack will be in for a hard awakening the day servers start appearing with only v6 because they couldn't afford a v4.

      • I have dual stack at home, natively. For all intents and purposes, IPv6 is useless to me. As a result, support is worse. If it goes down, I don't really notice it, and my ISP doesn't give much of a fuck ("err, use IPv4").

        Furthermore, as long as not everybody has dual stack, everybody suffers from IPv4 address exhaustion. In other words, the dual stack "solution" means that we have to use IPv4 until every single host (or at least every host we need to talk to) has implemented IPv6. In reality, it's clear that 20 years in the future there will still be idiots still running IPv4, because they can't be fucked to migrate. When I see how networking is broken in many enterprises, I don't see how they'll ever migrate to IPv6. I could tell you about all the brokenness I've witnessed, even in companies that are supposed to be somewhat technically oriented, and it's fucking scary.

        Forget dual stack. And don't call it a "solution," it's not just ridiculous, it's delusional.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It's so obvious, I find it shocking it's not taken into account more seriously.

      Our present situation is due in large part to the incompetence of the IPv6 designers and their total and complete failure to plan, or even recognise the need, for a transition.

      The IPv4 address space could have been embedded in the IPv6 space. If the existing standard couldn't handle it, then that standard needed to be changed so it could have. IPv6 machines needed native capability to talk to IPv4 devices. Their lack of it is a d

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ScytheBlade1 (772156)
      While not a fix-all, squid [squid-cache.org] can alleviate most all of the headaches involved with v6 v4 communication when it comes to HTTP (also known as "the internet" by the masses).

      Squid is v4 and v6 aware, which means if you have an IPv6 host using squid, it can talk to an IPv4 host. If you have an IPv4 host, it can now talk to an IPv6 host as well. The only downside here is that it requires configuration of the proxy in the browser directly, you can't (easily, without DNS spoofing) transparently proxy all requests.
  • But I did notice the other day that Time Warner is using 10.0.0.0 for user devices, and not just between the device and its gateway. Such IPs are exposed to the public, and fully routable within their network. Well, the cross-section of the public limited to TW customers, I suppose. I discovered this quite by accident. I thought my WiFi router was at 10.something and was very puzzled by the web page I received, which said "Scientific-Atlanta WebStar Cable Modem". Turns out my router is at 10.somethinge

    • by jimicus (737525)

      Not at all uncommon with big ISPs, alas. British Telecom are doing something similar - which to my mind suggests there may well be more than one layer of NAT going on for quite a few customers....

    • Yeah, I had to switch to 192.168. once my ISP started to use 10.x.x.x a few years ago. Sucked.

  • I've been using 1.1.1.1/8 at home for years. It's by far the quickest to type and remember.

    I'll probably keep using it for a while, until I need to reach any of those officially allocated addresses in 1/8. Hearing they got allocated in Africa and Latina America is really good news, since I rarely go to African and Latin American websites.

    • I used to use 10.x.x.x for my internal network, until it started to get routed. Appears some ISPs use it for things.

  • For some reason the private network at my work is on 131.0.0.0 with various subnets and VLANS in place. I believe this is already a public IP Address range for something or other.

    No, I don't know why it is that and not something else. We only have a couple hundred assigned IP addresses.

  • How about the Class E (reserved for future use) range? That's another 15 "Class A" blocks excluding RFC0919.

    How many people use anything but 224/8 for Multicast applications? IANA [iana.org] seems to have most of that space reserved or experimental.

    • Re:Multicast/Class E (Score:4, Informative)

      by mysidia (191772) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @08:03PM (#30883848)

      The problem with "Class E" is these addresses have a "not a valid IP address" status; the classification of the addresses are "Experimental", not UNICAST. As a result, many OSes or devices from many vendors will not allow you to assign a Class E address, or communicate with a Class E address.

      Windows XP falls into that category, Vista falls into that category, I cannot confirm whether Windows 7 falls into the category or not; unless there has been a recent patch, Class E IPs are unusable. Even Linux wouldn't allow you to communicate with a Class E address or assign it to an interface, until a kernel patch that was first introduced in January 2008

      Many routers and firewalls are in a similar situation. There is a lot of old software running at internet sites that is unlikely to be updated.

      If "Class E" address space is ever opened, it's likely that IETF would not direct IANA to assign Class E to the RIRs for public allocation, instead it might be made available for private purposes, much like the RFC1918 address space.

      The possibility of allocating 240/4 for use has been discussed on various network engineering mailing lists.

      Their findings were that many software programs and hardware devices recognize "Class E" addresses and indicates an error.

      So the thought that "Class E" is just more IP addresses to pick up for free, is a nice idea, but unfortunately no panacea. It would be very hard to resurrect that range to 'usefulness' at this point in the Internet's evolution (with such a large installed base).

  • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:35PM (#30883556)

    who claim that IP exhaustion is a conspiracy thought up by Al Gore to generate more money for the British Royal Family, and that if we ignore the liberal computer scientists and their biased journals, everything will be fine.

  • I'm really ticked about how the allocation of addresses has been handled over the years, and I can't seem to get a reasonable answer as to why the allocation strategy can't be fixed. How come we can't (pardon the expression) claw back a bunch of allocated but unused addresses from the organizations that are squatting on them? How come we can't allocate addresses in smaller blocks?

    • by compro01 (777531)

      1. Because those addresses were handed out back when there were not any provisions for reclaiming them.

      2. They are allocated in smaller blocks. This is IANA assigning address blocks to the Regional Internet Registries, which then assign smaller blocks out to whoever.

  • So still no need to start getting infrastructure ready for IPv6?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Want me to adopt IPv6? Make IPv6 Lite.

      In my humble opinion, the problem with IPv6 is that it's too radical a methodology change for most IT folks to be interested in. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a huge number of us are silently, subconsciously "waiting it out", for someone to propose and ratify a less intimidating address-extension protocol.

      It's not that I can't handle Hex... it's not that I can't handle colons. It's not that I can't handle learning about tunnels, or brokers, or 6to4 or any of the

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ekhben (628371)

        ... IPv4 machines should simply be a.b.c.d.0.0.0.0.0.0 or something equally obvious...

        ::ffff:1.2.3.4. Not that it helps, since v6 and v4 stacks are different.

        IPv6 is still network portion, host portion. You could still specify things in mask notation, if you wanted to, but it's kind of silly. Just use network prefix length notation, it's nicer for both v4 and v6. Gateways are still usually on ::1.

        Routers and IP stacks could be written to extend the address space a few more bits

        Ah yes, the "use more v4

    • Re:IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chris Mattern (191822) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @10:32PM (#30885116)

      IPv6 works like this. Every ISP and backbone peer has looked at the massive investment necessary to make their entire installed plant IPv6 ready, the large amount of work required, the fact that they will probably break everything about five times in the process because they did something wrong, and has decided that they will migrate when someone holds a gun to their heads and absolutely forces them. Not before.

  • Oh geez, I'm gonna have to explain things to my Mom after she gets the following notice in the mail:

    "Great news! Our engineers have invented an amazing new technology called IPv6 that NONE OF OUR COMPETITORS HAVE: More addresses! Greater speed! Less lag! New HD content never before available! OMG this new technology called VOIP works over it! Perform online backups! And enjoy the $20 increase to your monthly bill!

    That or Obama launches a "Rebates for Routers" program - 6 months AFTER I purchase an I

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Billly Gates (198444)

      Well the investors have to get their 15% return every quarter for all of eternity somehow. This is whats expected in this day and age.

  • Why does Hewlett-Packard have not one but TWO /8 IPv4 address ranges [iana.org]? Ain't they heard of NAT? How many other corporations have legacy /8 addresses and are holding on to them, not because they need them but because their laziness to move towards efficient use of those addresses creates a sense of entitlement to those very addresses.
    • Why does Hewlett-Packard have not one but TWO /8 IPv4 address ranges [iana.org]?

      Where do you see that? As far as I know, they have a single /8 and a bunch of /16s.

      The answer, of course, is that they were assigned before subnetting (CIDR) was deployed.

  • How is 1.1.1.1 one of the "least desirable" ip addresses? I'd love to have it!

  • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @07:56PM (#30883794) Homepage

    When I discovered m0n0wall 1.3 hit the pavement, with support for IPv6, I made the move to transition my home network to v6, for no other reason than it seemed like an interesting thing to do (what can I say, I like to tinker). In the process, I looked to moving all my services to v6... obviously I can't completely abandon v4 internally, but I figured, why not move all my internal stuff over? Problem is, among the software I use, the following don't support v6 at all:

    Linux NFS client and server
    MySQL
    MythTV
    rtorrent
    m0n0wall's VPN implementations (both IPSec (ironically) and PPTP)

    And those are just the first four that popped up (though at least I was able to patch rtorrent). God knows what other software out there doesn't support v6. Of course, many of these things can live in private v4 networks for the time being, but until application vendors catch up with the times, it seems v4 and v6 will be living side-by-side for a long time to come.

  • I wonder if speculators and investors are buying up all the IP4 addresses just to resell them at 10x the price. The same speculators that made billions doing this to housing until a bubble formed.

    Or am I just paranoid? I would be tempted myself if I were an evil billionaire.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ARIN is totally incompetent; Not only does the Prudential have a /8, but back in 1992 when I worked at the Prudential Bank in Atlanta, that totally separate division applied for and got a class-B (158.221) and still holds it to this day. The ridiculous thing is that they will never use it, never did and when I tried to get ARIN to look into getting it back in the late 1990s, that fell on deaf ears. In fact, the Prudential Bank doesn't even exist anymore at the address in the registry entry for 158.221; I do

  • The end is near (Score:3, Informative)

    by ()ff-t()pic (604252) on Sunday January 24, 2010 @08:17PM (#30883970)

    We are going to run out of IPv4 addresses in March next year (422 days from today)
    http://ipv4depletion.com/?page_id=4 [ipv4depletion.com] /JB

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

Working...