Interop Returns 16 Million IPv4 Addresses 270
klapaucjusz writes "Every discussion about IPv4 address exhaustion prompts comments about whether Apple (or MIT, or UCB, or whoever) needs all of those addresses. Interop has set the example by returning 16 million IPv4 addresses to the ARIN pool, extending the IPv4 address exhaustion deadline by a whole month."
Delaying the inevitable (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Delaying the inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
How long are they going to keep this up for? Jeez.
Yes, but this at least gives people an extra month to make sure everything is ready to go.
It's actually refreshingly nice to see that for once, a company has turned around and said: "I know this is ours, but we aren't using it. Someone else might need it more. Here you go chaps!".
Have you heard of Altruism [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Does anyone else smell Y2K hysteria here? (Score:3, Insightful)
So because NAT happens to work for you, and your rather basic needs, we should delay the inevitable instead of fixing the fundamental underlying problem.
Got it.
Re:Delaying the inevitable (Score:2, Insightful)
We've known this was coming for years. Do you really think adding on another month is going to do a single thing?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessiarly (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet addresses are more leased than sold. The agencies in control let you use them, they don't give you a deed you get to keep forever. As a practical matter they belong to you because they don't want to cause trouble, but if push comes to shove, addresses can be taken back without compensation.
That may be part of the thought with this. Not only is it altruistic and makes you look good but they may be worried it becomes mandatory later. They worry maybe IANA says "Guess what? We are taking back that block, you've got 1 month to renumber," and it is a big hurry, rather than just doing it and then being in the clear.
Probably awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't understand the rather complex issues in converting everything over to IPv6, you might want to look in to it. On every level there are issues that have to be addressed. Some of them just cost money, some of them take work, etc.
So a simple example, but a big issue, is that of high end routers. They don't do routing in software, it isn't like they have a general purpose CPU that handles all the routing. They have one, but it is limited in power and is just for control. The routing itself is handled by ASICs. That is for speed reasons, only way to get data around that fast. Like all ASICs they do only what they were designed for. Ok well that means you have have a bigass router that can't handle IPv6. Sure technically you can upgrade the software and turn it on, but that hits the CPU. If anything more than a small amount of flows starts happening, the router crashes. You have to get a new router, that can do IPv6. Fine and well, but that costs a lot of money. These can be 7-8 figure devices. You don't just run out and buy all new ones all the time.
There are also software issues. Not everything handles IPv6 well. A major stalling point is Windows XP. It can have IPv6 added to it, but it doesn't support it by default. No problem on Vista and 7, but there's still a good amount of XP systems floating about. That'll change with time, but right now if ISPs just go IPv6 and fuck over their XP customers, well people get mad.
IPv6 is just going to be a gradual thing. Slowly more and more things will support it, it'll be enabled in more and more places. There isn't going to be a "We stop using IPv4 now and switch to IPv6 now," day, it'll just be a case that IPv6 will get rolled out everywhere. As that happens, you'll start to see IPV6 only services, or cheaper IPv6 services. Your ISP may offer you as many IPv6 addresses as you'd like to have for no cost, or IPv4 addresses at $10/month. Cheaper shared webhosts may do dedicated IPv6 addresses per site, but only one IPv4 address per server. As time goes on, people will probably stop bothering with the IPv4 stuff. New OSes may ship with it turned off by default, and eventually without it at all.
It will take time though. That is the only way it'll happen. Only in the fantasy world of geeks can it just be a switch that gets flipped tomorrow and everyone changes over.
Re:Start with the cell phone industry. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dual-IP no NAT schemes only work if you actually have IPv4 addresses - which we are running out of if you haven't noticed already.
Schemes involving NAT "kinda" work, but if people really didn't mind using NAT, then we could skip going to IPv6 and stick with mass IPv4 NATing.
If by "they" you mean the greedy... (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer is: they DON'T. Nor does Halliburton, Eli Lilly, Prudential Insurance (!!!), or Ford. In fact, they've done a great job of proving they don't, by running out and securing a number of class B address spaces in other class A/B octets when they should have just given out subnets of their existing Class A.
Even HP, Apple, and IBM are standing on shaky ground; they're international corporations whose primary business is at least somewhat internet related, but they still don't need 16 million addresses in one space.
Re:Probably awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
> There isn't going to be a "We stop using IPv4 now and switch to IPv6 now,"
And that EXACTLY is the fucking problem.
Numerous countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic) can, _gasp_, educate people to switch from driving from the left hand side to the right hand side so that there are minimal migration problems, but yet everyone is too fucking lazy to coordinate the inevitable from IPV4 to IPV6.
Set a date. Educate consumers. And DO IT already, say ~ Aug 2014, when WinXP stops receiving security updates.
This isn't just going to magically happy when people get around to it...
Re:Probably awhile (Score:3, Insightful)
its more than just people, its businesses, and you frankly arent understanding just how big those cogs are. there are also "unknown unknowns" here. even on a small scale (under 1000 users, say) an IP migration can be a *very* complicated and especially when you get to the level of 2nd or 3rd tier providers the amount of preparation that needs to be done just to THINK about what would be required to PLAN such a move is staggering. this doesnt even get into the application layer. most applications dont currently support IPv6 and many corporations dont upgrade main line of business applications regularly. some of the companies i work with use software that is from the mid 90's and a few have stuff thats copyright 1988. For many of these businesses the cost of upgrading the hardware and/or software is prohibitive. But cost is a whole other can of worms, you try convincing a small business owner or CFO or CEO that they need to spend money they dont have on something they know they need but isnt killing them now. beyond that theres yet other issues as well.
i'm not saying you're wrong, people DO need more education on the matter and we do need to start making these changes ASAP but the going is not as easy as "RTFA and make a change"
Re:Probably awhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Delaying the inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the IPv4 space runs out, it is likely that there will be a secondary market for /24's. That /8 could make quite a bit of money if carved into /24's. It would also be another 65k routes for the global routing table, which would be no fun at all.
We should appreciate their gesture; they did lose something and we are all slightly richer because of what they did.
Re:Probably awhile (Score:1, Insightful)