Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet

Free IPv4 Pool Now Down To Seven /8s 460

Posted by timothy
from the need-to-join-a-new-pool dept.
Zocalo writes "For those of you keeping score, ICANN just allocated another four /8 IPv4 blocks; 23/8 and 100/8 to ARIN, 5/8 and 37/8 to RIPE, leaving just seven /8s unassigned. In effect however, this means that there are now just two /8s available before the entire pool will be assigned due to an arrangement whereby the five Regional Internet Registries would each automatically receive one of the final five /8s once that threshold was met. The IPv4 Address Report counter at Potaroo.net is pending an update and still saying 96 days, but it's now starting to look doubtful that we're going to even make it to January."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free IPv4 Pool Now Down To Seven /8s

Comments Filter:
  • Last IP!!

    I Have 2 that I'm not using anymore, perhaps I should put them on ebay? ;-)

  • Soo... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Facegarden (967477) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:17PM (#34397552)

    So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out?
    -Taylor

    • Re:Soo... (Score:4, Funny)

      by keeboo (724305) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:26PM (#34397652)
      Dunno... The heat death of the internet?
    • Re:Soo... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Konsalik (1921874) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:27PM (#34397664)
      THE INTERWEBZ EXPLODZ!!! Ok no seriously, once ICANN allocates the final blocks the IPv4 space will be declared as "used up" but it is still up to the regional RIRs to *use* those IPs. ie if ICANN issues IPs they are not automatically used. Thus it will still be a while after that when they are really all used up. Even then we could maybe see a sharing of sub-blocks between regional RIRs (?) For example AfriNic will probably have quite a surplus if it receives another /8 range. Lastly there are (not so preferable) technologies available such as NAT to allow the internet to continue functioning as it did (more or less). In the end we will need to move to IPv6.
      • Re:Soo... (Score:5, Informative)

        by glwtta (532858) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:49PM (#34397898) Homepage
        it is still up to the regional RIRs to *use* those IPs

        Regional Internet Registry.
      • by Lennie (16154)

        Why in the end we will have to move to IPv6 ? Why not now ?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by icebraining (1313345)

          Some already are, others' aren't. It's not cheap, hence it'll be delayed, as always.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sjames (1099)

            It ain't cheap if you're a major provider, but for the rest of us it is somewhere between dirt cheap to absolutely free.

            It WOULD have been cheap or free for the major providers as well had they not spent the last 10 years with their heads buried in the sand. They could have gotten v6 capable routers as part of their normal upgrade cycle.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              It's not just providers. There're enterprises who have some quite expensive routers that don't do v6. Not all home gear does v6; my iPhone 3G doesn't, and I'm pretty sure some of the consoles I have don't do it either. My printer doesn't. There are solutions to this, but that's still more work.
              • Re:Soo... (Score:4, Informative)

                by Straterra (1045994) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:05PM (#34398832)
                Any iOS device with 4.0 or later supports IPv6, including your iPhone.
                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by hedwards (940851)
                  I'm curious why Apple chose not to include support. I mean after all MS offers support for IPv6 since SP1. Is it a resources thing like Flash or is it something that Steve hates, like Flash.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by sjames (1099)

                Dual stack is the natural next step here. That means only things going off the LAN/VPN need support v6.

                The enterprises won't have to replace their expensive routers, they can set up 6rd servers and department based gateways (or just configure the gateways they already have. Like the providers, they could have had the full support for free with a tiny bit of foresight.

                New home router, $50, not all that expensive. Of go to OpenWRT.

                Your printer doesn't likely need to go to v6. I suspect you don't offer it as a

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by Inda (580031)
                  My XBOX360 connects to my home network through IPv6. The amusing thing is, I did absolutely fuck-all to make it connect this way.
        • Why in the end we will have to move to IPv6 ? Why not now ?

          Because nobody wants to be on the internet all by themselves.

        • Re:Soo... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mmontour (2208) <mail@mmontour.net> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:25PM (#34398278)

          "Why not now"? Because slack-ass websites like the one you're currently browsing still haven't bothered to flip on the IPv6 switch. I have IPv6 at home (pretty much plug-and-play; just enable it on the Apple Airport base station and all of the LAN machines pick up an address) and the only site I've found to go to is "ipv6.google.com". OK, there's also a dancing turtle GIF on kame.net, but that doesn't really count.

          Interestingly there is an "ipv6.slashdot.org" DNS entry. However it has no IPv6 "AAAA" record, only an IPv4 "A". Seriously guys, WTF? If a techie "News for Nerds" site can't be bothered to make itself available to IPv6 users then there's little hope for the rest of the web.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            There's ipv6.facebook.com, and that's a pretty major site.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Nigel Stepp (446)

            Some big ipv6 domains. (This list was posted to the nanog mailing list last week or so):

            ipv6.cnn.com
            ipv6.comcast.net
            ipv6.google.com
            www.ipv6.cisco.com
            www.v6.facebook.com
            m.v6.facebook.com
            ipv6.t-mobile.com
            ipv6.weather.yahoo.com

          • by afidel (530433)
            I believe the problem was that some OS's preferred AAAA results even if they didn't have a working connected IPv6 address and hence the user got black holed from the site or majorly long delays for the connection to time out. According to Googles numbers ~.1% of internet users have broken dual stacks vs .26% have working IPv6 connections. There's also an average increase of ~150ms for a dual stacked host that connects to the IPv6 address. linky [google.com]
  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:18PM (#34397562) Homepage

    ... since the unexpected end of the century in '99.

    (What is actually surprising is that the internet still hasn't widely adopted IP6, and ISPs are now turning to ludicrous measures - NAT - to keep avoiding what makes sense.)

    • by bbn (172659)

      ... since the unexpected end of the century in '99.

      Quite unexpected considering centuries start at year 1 and end in year 100.

    • (What is actually surprising is that the internet still hasn't widely adopted IP6, and ISPs are now turning to ludicrous measures - NAT - to keep avoiding what makes sense.)

      Dare I ask... why, pray tell, do you consider NAT to be a "ludicrous" measure? It seems like a pretty sturdy bridge to me. IPv6's slow adoption isn't really surprising to me; it has required code modifications across the board on numerous levels. It has been more of an undertaking than most people realize. On the other hand, apart from a little NAT-trickery to allow hole-punching (which, admittedly, should be have been put in a standard), the large majority of legacy apps continue to work under NAT like

      • by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:48PM (#34397880)
        And the best part for ISPs is, NAT turns the Internet from its inherent peer-to-peer nature into a client/server architecture where all home users can be relegated to "content consumers" under cover of IP4 address shortages. Score!
      • by sjames (1099) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:40PM (#34398480) Homepage

        Lets say your ISP assigns you 10.0.32.128. Now, kindly tell me how you plan to connect to your home PC from work.

        • by DeadBeef (15) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:55PM (#34398696) Homepage
          What will make it even more fun is if you have two branch offices of the same company connected to the different ISPs getting 172.16.32.66 and 10.0.65.88, how do you set up a VPN between them?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lennie (16154)

        IPv4 will last us about one and half year. IPv4 will run out next year, the regional registries (RIR's) will run out a number of months later and if you are lucky your provider still has some new IPv4 addresses left for his new customers.

        Then your provider can only get new addresses for money from other providers/organisations which want to sell them for money.

        The following will happen, first for new customers and eventually for all existing customers.

        When we get to a point where your access-provider does n

    • by Lennie (16154)

      I think it is 10% of the provider networks, but it's higher when you are talking about transit providers (what some people call Tier 1 or Tier 2).

  • IPV6 anybody? (new meme anybody?)
  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:21PM (#34397600)

    where is ATT and comcast with IPV6?

  • NAT Time!
    Granted, it is not a solution for everything, but there are just TONS of networks that could be behind NAT's and don't need anywhere near the IPV4 space they have. I have a feeling NATing will suddenly become a lot more popular.

    • Re:NAT! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xugumad (39311) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:03PM (#34398024)

      I'm frankly terrified that the "solution" to this is not to fix the underlying issue, but instead to layer work-arounds on it.

      Not to mention, unless I'm much mistaken a NAT can support 65536 connections at maximum (number of valid ports for outgoing connections). A /8 network might be okay, but putting a larger network behind NAT isn't going to help, and you can't layer them (because you still need a port free for the connection). We're going to run out, NAT just delays the inevitable by layering a giant administrative headache on the top.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by EdIII (1114411)

        The whole thing is a lesson in waste and inefficiency.

        Every business that I have ever known, or been involved with its network, was delivered anywhere from 4-32 IP addresses on their T1 lines. Just recently I setup a new business cablemodem connection and they just gave me ,without me asking, 8 IP addresses.

        What the heck do I need 8 IP addresses for at a branch office? I don't really know of any businesses that really need a static IP address, much less multiple ones to host multiple publicly addressable

      • by Burning1 (204959)

        NAT can be implemented a huge number of ways.

        On small class C networks, especially when using consumer grade equipment, it's very common to put the entire network behind a single external IP address. Each outgoing connection is assigned a port on the NAT box. Network utilization on a class C should never be so great as to exhaust the number of available ports. This is many to one NAT.

        For larger corporate networks, it's common to use a pool of IP addresses on a more advanced router. Because each IP address h

      • by ugen (93902)

        No, there is no such limitation. You are mistaken. Connections can be matched based on both a port and a remote destination, so the same mapped port could be used for multiple connections.

        What you wanted to say is that NAT is limited to 65535 unique host mappings (i.e. that many IP's hidden behind one IP). Well, if we can extend IPv4 number of hosts that many times, we should be good for a few thousand years :)

  • Let it burn to the ground and start fresh. IPv256! Decentralized DNS! All the good stuff. Oh well.

    • by blair1q (305137) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:54PM (#34397946) Journal

      If we are to do that then the address field of the packet header should be a null-terminated string, not a fixed or limited size.

      Note that if you embed the length in the header you have to decide how wide the length field is, which then limits the string length. Though I'll accept arguments to the effect that an 18e18-character address should be enough for anyone.

  • by Konsalik (1921874) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:34PM (#34397738)
    Remember before Y2k almost all computer manufacturers placed "Y2k Compliant" or "Y2k Ready" logos on everything from bare computer cases to speakers? Well I cant wait for my "IPv6 Ready" USB keyboard...
  • Take em back! If we run out just reassign them. Do we really need an internet connected refrigerator to tell us that we need milk and $grocer has the best price?
    • by blair1q (305137)

      Well, yeah. The only question is will we control it or will $advertisers control it?

  • Does anybody wanna buy an......eight? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfelvI_ikf4 [youtube.com]
  • ipv6 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:41PM (#34397814)
    Whens slashdot going to go ipv6?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @08:50PM (#34397906)

    Because I'm on it right now yet I see no AAAA record. Pretty much anyone on Comcast can get a 6rd address at the drop of a hat; native dual stack is coming. Other providers will have to get on the bandwagon soon I gather. Whine endless about the end of ipv4 after you've already made arrangements to join the modern age.

  • For years now I have had this netbsd box as my front end. The DSL modem plugs into an ethernet port on the PC which NATs in two directions: a local hard wired network and wifi. So after y'all slashdotted by server I stated looking at a rebuild around this nice fast AMD64 machine but it is light on PCI slots so I can't have the two ethernet cards plus atheros wifi plus serial that I need.

    So last night I splashed out on a Netcomm wifi router and the plan I formulated later in the evening was to use it as my f

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Most of your cheap little crap routers have 32 bit processors with no larger data types and a two-bit amount of RAM so IPv6 will choke them like a bitch if it is even feasible to support on them.

    • What the sam hell are you babbling about? Enable your IPv6 routing and leave us alone!

  • what needs "public" IPs? What /really/ needs them? routing interfaces between networks, and websites using ssl. Since a very large percentage of the web surfing population is still using windowsXP or older, we can't use TLS (which has been around for ages). So instead, every single ssl-enabled site needs it's own IP. I work at a small company, and even we could release hundreds of public IPs if WindowsXP could use tls instead of ssl.
    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @09:07PM (#34398066) Homepage Journal

      what needs "public" IPs?

      Anything that wants to participate in the peer-to-peer internet as a peer.

      • by shentino (1139071) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:39PM (#34399738)

        Sounds like something ISPs actually wouldn't mind obstructing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ugen (93902)

        Not true at all. It is possible to establish a direct peer to peer connection between two hosts which are *both* behind NAT. You do need a "rendezvous" server to bounce a few packets - that's not hard to do, and can be easily accommodated as part of any other P2P infrastructure (or even outside of it).

        In fact, running P2P in that manner would significantly increase privacy of its participants because to anyone outside a given network there will no longer be a visible single mapping of IP to a "person" (or h

    • by Lennie (16154) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:06PM (#34398838) Homepage

      Actually it does support TLS, it just doesn't support SNI. Or actually IE and Safari only, because they use the windows library. Firefox and Chrome use the library first developed at Netscape and Opera uses OpenSSL.

      But as SNI is the part that adds 'Namebased virtual hosts' to TLS, the result is the same as you mentioned. Everything that wants to use a certificate still needs it's own IPv4-address (and/or IPv6 address) for now.

  • Will everyone using Hamachi be unable to reach whoever gets a 5/8 address?
  • Dibs!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @10:16PM (#34398946)

    How long before I can get the address 255.255.255.255? I wanna set up a website called 'endoftheinternet.com'!

  • MAC Address? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by itamblyn (867415) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:11AM (#34400016) Homepage
    Why is IPv6 not based on MAC adresses? I've never understood this. Every piece of electronics capable of connecting to a network has at least one unique hardware id already. Why do we need a new one? Is there are reason not to just use this number? Or have I misunderstood, and this actually IS the plan.
    • Re:MAC Address? (Score:4, Informative)

      by CyprusBlue113 (1294000) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:30AM (#34400172)

      Privacy

    • Re:MAC Address? (Score:4, Informative)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:51AM (#34401146)

      Why is IPv6 not based on MAC adresses? I've never understood this.

      Well, first of all, it sort of is. The typical way to get an address on an IPv6 network is stateless auto-configuration [ietf.org], which basically allows your client to combine an advertised route prefix with the EUI-64 (basically a longer version of a MAC address that can be generated from a MAC address) to determine its IP. You don't need any configuration for new clients and they always get the same IP address. Note that Windows Vista/7 use a hashing function with random data and the MAC address so that you can't track a single machine based on its IPv6 address, which solves privacy concerns.

      Second, you can't just use the MAC address because it's not easy to route traffic that way. Routing works today because networks are assigned contiguous blocks of addresses, so it's easy to tell where to route traffic based on the address prefix. If we just had MAC addresses (which contain no information about which devices are connected to which networks), routing would require huge tables that would frequently change. This works OK for a small to medium sized network (e.g. switched Ethernet) but it doesn't work at all for the Internet. Even medium-large organizations need to use subnets to effectively manage traffic, which aren't possible without network prefixes.

All the evidence concerning the universe has not yet been collected, so there's still hope.

Working...