Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Asia Runs Out of IPv4 Addresses 321

Posted by timothy
from the perhaps-you'd-like-to-try-the-duck dept.
ZerXes writes "It seems that APNIC has just released the last block of IPv4 addresses and are now completely out, a lot faster then expected. Even though APNIC received 3 /8 blocks in February the high growth of mobile devices made the addresses run out even before the summer. 'From this day onwards, IPv6 is mandatory for building new Internet networks and services,' says APNIC Director General Paul Wilson."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Asia Runs Out of IPv4 Addresses

Comments Filter:
  • So which is which? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bogaboga (793279)

    "It seems that APNIC has just released the last block of IPv4 addresses and are now completely out, a lot faster then expected.

    The headline says something to the effect that IP addresses are out yet the quoted line has the word 'seems', casting doubt as to whether the addresses are out for sure. What's really going on?

    • by Zocalo (252965) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @07:05PM (#35823304) Homepage
      APNIC is NOT out of IPv4 addresses. They are down to their last /8 - the one they got as one of the final five /8s being allocated to each of the RIRs. This puts them in the third and final stage of their IPv4 exhaustion plan, whereby they will only allocate a maximum of a single /22 to each network operator which is supposed to be used primarily to enable a transistion to IPv6 by supporting IPv4 to IPv6 gateways and hosts that just have to be on a native IPv4 address.

      More information directly from APNIC here. [apnic.net]
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, 2011 @07:18PM (#35823406)

        A /22 is pretty much nothing, so what you're saying is that an ISP looking for addresses can get pretty much nothing from APNIC. Thus, they're basically out.

        • by julesh (229690)

          A /22 is pretty much nothing, so what you're saying is that an ISP looking for addresses can get pretty much nothing from APNIC. Thus, they're basically out.

          A /22 is probably enough for a moderate-sized ISP to run NAT for all of their customers. Which is the point: IPv4 addresses are being rationed to the point where end users won't be able to get them any more. That's not *quite* the same thing as being out. IPv6 transition won't be mandatory, as long as you can do everything you want to do from behind NAT (as most users can).

          • by 1s44c (552956) on Friday April 15, 2011 @04:06AM (#35826188)

            A /22 is pretty much nothing, so what you're saying is that an ISP looking for addresses can get pretty much nothing from APNIC. Thus, they're basically out.

            A /22 is probably enough for a moderate-sized ISP to run NAT for all of their customers. Which is the point: IPv4 addresses are being rationed to the point where end users won't be able to get them any more. That's not *quite* the same thing as being out. IPv6 transition won't be mandatory, as long as you can do everything you want to do from behind NAT (as most users can).

            NAT destroys the peer to peer nature of the network. It limits who can run servers of any type to those who are outside NAT.

            Using NAT at the ISP level is basicly evil and should not be considered when we are going to need to deploy IPv6 anyway.

      • by LingNoi (1066278)

        I love how decades later and faced with now total exhaustion people on slashdot are still claiming this isn't a problem. Cue the "we can simply use NAT" posts.

    • by arivanov (12034)

      http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8 [apnic.net]

      They are not allocating ipv4 to anyone but new ISPs and for IPv6 transition purposes. You cannot get IPv4 if for normal use if you are an existing account holder. Even if you are eligible the most you get is 4 /24s.

  • by neokushan (932374) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @06:55PM (#35823206)

    This might have a really obvious answer, but is there any reason why mobiles necessarily need an IPv4 address? Surely they could get away with IPv6 and a bit of tunnelling. Hell, in the UK most mobiles share an IP anyway.

    • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @06:59PM (#35823240) Homepage

      Yeah, giving mobile phones IPv6 addresses makes a lot of sense. A 'no brainer', maybe. All new 'embedded' type consumer devices should be IPv6 only, IMO. It completely avoids most of the problems associated with IPv6 on so-called legacy IPv4 networks:

      * there are no legacy applications
      * the likelihood of connecting, directly, with anything on IPv4 that does not support IPv6 is drastically lowered
      * there is little to no legacy hardware to support.

      Of course, this would require the handsets and other 'embedded' devices to actually support IPv6. I don't know if that's the case, yet.

      • by Junta (36770)

        the likelihood of connecting, directly, with anything on IPv4 that does not support IPv6 is drastically lowered

        I presume you mean that *provided* that the carrier does NAT64+DNS64 a mobile phone will be ok, not that a phone never needs to talk an IPv4 only server. With that clarification in place, I'd concur.

      • by doublebackslash (702979) <doublebackslash@gmail.com> on Thursday April 14, 2011 @07:26PM (#35823498)

        Sweet! You mean to say that all websites and application specific servers for mobile phones have been migrated to ipv6! Awesome!

        Oh wait... hold on a second... Almost the entirety of the English speaking Internet still isn't on ipv6?

        Whats that you say? Not even friggin' slashdot?

        I wonder if THAT is why.

        Now having said that: Every computer I'm an admin for is 100% ipv6 compatible and all of my servers have AAAA dns records alongside their A records. I've even got a nice little OSPFv3 infrastructure running. It isn't friggin rocket surgery, but everyone is dragging their ass on the ground like the problem will become someone else's, when in reality it will shortly become everyone's. All of my efforts are in vain so long as there is a dearth of IPv6 accessible content.

        By the by, are you running IPv6?

        Lastly: For everyone who says that it is "hard" for large network to migrate, and they they have to re-learn everything yadda yadda:

        IPv6 is easier to work with on a large scale thanks to the simplified routing tables that it affords as well as the shotgun approach to address assignment. Every single link is a /64 at minimum (and maximum, given the number addresses in a /64) and the blocks can be handed out ham-fistedly because of the mind boggling size of the space. If they have hardware that does not support ipv6 then they should blame themselves. Large network operators have NO EXCUSE. They knew this was coming and their profit margins are wide enough that they could have thrown money at it.

        • by DarkJC (810888)

          They knew this was coming and their profit margins are wide enough that they could have thrown money at it.

          That just won't do in todays "more profit every quarter" market. Won't somebody think of the shareholders!

        • by Idbar (1034346)
          I had a lot of trouble with support to relaying using statefull DHCP servers which were required by the company I worked for. If all the important manufacturers are supporting this, then it shouldn't be a problem. Unluckily, I know at least that Juniper wasn't supporting this not too long ago, and I'm not sure Cisco. So it may not be a pain for infrastructure (ISP) or small companies that don't mind handling IPs using the stateless algorithm. But for some reason, some companies don't want to use that.
          • Not that I doubt that management is intransigent for reasons that they hold dear BUT... what does the stateful DHCP service provide them in the IPv6 context? What excuse are they pulling out to "require" this. I'm interested in knowing.

        • Really? All your switches and routers are IPv6 compatible? Does your organization shit money or something?
          • IPv6 operates above layer two. Switches of any kind whatsoever that *ahem* "support" ipv4 will also operate equally well with ipv6. Layer 3 "switches" not withstanding, of course. Those are more closely related to routers than standard layer two switches.

            As far as routers go: no, we don't shit money. We know how to type. Specifically we know how to type into our router's configuration to turn on ipv6. IPv6 routers are magical beats carved out of unicorn ivory and powered by the souls of freshly deceased cob

        • by Lennie (16154)

          A lot of mobile phone network operaters in the US are migrating to IPv6 with NAT64:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanisms#NAT64 [wikipedia.org]

          And only handout IPv4 to users that request it (pay extra), why ? Because the manufacturers of network-hardware for mobile phone networks ask you to pay 2 times when you want IPv4 and IPv6. So the profit margin is all gone. So they'll eventually do anything to move most users over to IPv6 and translate that to IPv4 where needed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by crow (16139)

      I'm very glad that my phone has a real IP address, so I can ssh into it. Thanks, Sprint.

      That said, I wouldn't mind if it were IPv6, but I would be annoyed if it were through a NAT.

      • If it was IPv6 it would not be through NAT.

      • by ZorinLynx (31751)

        Enjoy it while it lasts.

        Once Sprint runs out of address space they will HAVE to start putting users on NAT to service them. They will likely start putting new accounts behind NAT, leaving old accounts "grandfathered in". Users who NEED a real address (for NAT or certain services that need it) will likely have to sign up with an "enterprise" plan or something similar to get one.

        That is what AT&T does; that's the difference between the "regular" and "enterprise" data plans. Regular = behind a NAT, enterpr

      • by Cimexus (1355033)

        Ditto here. Vodafone Australia and my phone has a real publicly addressable IP. Wonder how much longer that can last though, considering Australia = APNIC, and they have just run out of addresses as per this article...

    • So no they don't need their own public IPv4 address and indeed I've never seen one that has one. However you do need IPv4 addresses to access stuff on the Internet. Regardless of if you do IPv4 NAT or if you do IPv6 with gateways to v4, you need the IPv4 addresses.

    • by Gerald (9696)

      T-Mobile and Verizon are way ahead of you [psu.edu].

  • IPv4 addresses may be running out, but we can all look forward to supporting them forever in a second stack, running parallel to our IPv6 software, now and forever, for the rest of eternity, Amen.

    Unless the entire world magically switches over to IPv6 all at once like the designers planned for. Hasn't happened yet though.

    • by bcmm (768152)

      IPv4 addresses may be running out, but we can all look forward to supporting them forever in a second stack, running parallel to our IPv6 software, now and forever, for the rest of eternity, Amen.

      Like how browsers all still having to cope with both Gopher and HTTP? Like Gopher, IPv4 will fade out, slowly. At some point, new networks will see no need to have an IPv4 address just for the tiny minority of users who would need it.

      I know the problem is of a much greater magnitude, but it still doesn't require a

      • by Chemisor (97276) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @07:31PM (#35823524)

        Gopher is not a good example. When a site already has an IPv4 address it has no incentive to offer it over IPv6 too, since v6 offers no technological benefit to the webhost. Conversely, a site that is only on IPv6 is not going to get any hits, so anyone that wants traffic needs an IPv4 address anyway. IPv4 is simply not going to go away because the people without an address are kicking up a fuss. I would guess that those people will be stuck in their own IPv6 world, while all the content worth viewing would still be on IPv4.

        • by cgenman (325138)

          If a website has an IPv4 address, it may want to maintain that. If it doesn't, and the IPv4 addresses have dried up, it may not be possible to get one (or at least, it may be royally expensive). Similarly, tunneling from IPv6 to IPv4 is still very imperfect, meaning that once new devices and connections are on IPv6, your incentive to serve IPv6 is to not tick off your new users (which are usually the most profitable).

          I suspect we will hit a tipping point, where new devices and connections happen via IPv6,

          • When does IPv4 not just run out, but get painfully expensive to acquire?

            Indeed, at least in the west most home lusers still have public V4 IPs. I would expect ISPs to gradually reclaim those IPs for more lucrative customers and so it will be a while (possiblly a decade) before the shortage really bites on western ISPs.

            It is over in the east that things are REALLY going to get hairy with so many new users coming online that I would expect IP values to dramatically rise. ISP level nat will help to an extent but there are limits on the ratios that can practially be used. I would e

            • by Cimexus (1355033)

              FWIW I live in an APNIC country (and my ISP) is already 100% migrated to dual stack. If your router supports it, home lusers will get a native IPv6 connection out of the box right now. Mine doesn't but I'm replacing it next week with one that does (I'm upgrading for reasons other than IPv6, it's just a nice bonus).

              So it seems to me that cause the addresses are running out quicker in APNIC land than elsewhere that the ISPs here are more on the ball when it comes to IPv6 migration. Not all of them, but the go

      • by rs79 (71822)

        In a world where there are still installations running WordStar under CP/M (there are) you will never see V4 go away. Not in your lifetime, not in your kids lifetime, not in their kids lifetime.

    • Wasn't the whole point of IPv6 being essentially independent of IPv4 so that you COULD run dual stacks? Because it would be completely un-reasonable to be able to cut-over from one addressing protocol to another world wide in any reasonable fashion? So ... yes, dual stacks for the next 20 years on main-stream devices, maybe 70-80 years for niche needs sounds reasonable to me.
    • I can't see the world magically switching over to anything voluntarily.
  • At least now IPv6 is mandatory!

    Wouldn't it have been better to make it mandatory years ago?

  • A glance at the master IANA table here [iana.org] seems to say that the USA got the majority of ipv4 addresses, even though today the majority of devices is elsewhere.
    • by dakameleon (1126377) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @08:05PM (#35823856)

      Yeah, that's what tends to happen when you get there first. It's not like they were going to reserve addresses on a per-capita basis.

      • by jd (1658)

        ^get there first^own ICANN and enough critical infrastructure to demand whatever the hell they like, no questions asked, regardless of any actual needs

        • And why do they own ICANN, and most of the critical infrastructure? Because they got there first.
          • by jd (1658) <.imipak. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Friday April 15, 2011 @12:39AM (#35825402) Homepage Journal

            Not really, X.25 networks had gone global (International Packet Switch Stream) at a time the Internet was still purely an American toy. The Internet became global because the rest of the world had got there first - hardware-wise, at least. All the early transatlantic links were IPSS lines re-purposed, as was all the early European Internet capability. The Americans got the software side first.

            Since the modern Internet is a marriage between software and hardware, and not one or the other alone, the only fair conclusion is that it was a global invention with no nation being able to claim credit for being truly first.

    • Well of course (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @11:08PM (#35825038)

      The US invented the Internet. The Internet originally started as ARPANET a research network designed by DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an agency of the US Department of Defense. It started out as a link between a few US research universities and institutes. TCP/IP was then developed by Robert Kahn and Vince Cerf, working for DARPA. DARPA liked it and funded the development of the software to implement it.

      After that various other government entities created TCP/IP networks based around ARPANET like the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and so on. Those unified in to what become the Internet.

      Now that is not to say it did not become a global endevour. Around the time the Internet came to be, CERN made their own TCP network, CERNET, and then they started looking to link up with the US Internet and did so around 1989. Also CERN of course developed the basis of the world wide web. However the Internet itself started in the US.

      That's why IANA, the ultimate top level controller of Internet numbers, is based in the US. It was created there to manage things on ARPANET.

      You have to remember that nobody who was designing this was thinking "Global communications system that links every computer, every phone, every TV, etc on the planet." Such a concept was really pretty unimaginable. This was just an effort to get an efficient, interoperable network for linking big institutions.

      So when IPs first started being handed out it was done inefficently. If you were real big, you got a Class A (/8, 16 million), if you were moderately sized a Class B (/16, 65 thousand) if you were small you got a Class C (/24, 256). Companies like AT&T and IBM got entire Class As for themselves. Most of that went to US entities, since they were the only ones who could get on at the time. ARPANET and some of the other research networks like NSFNET that started all this were only for research institutions and public entities. So only universities, research labs (like SRI), the military, and companies involved in the research could get on and thus get addresses.

      Yes, yes, all bad in hindsight but who knew the Internet would become what it has? It also is just how shit goes. You invent something, you get to have it your way.

      Neil Degrasse Tyson calls it "naming rights" and shows how it happens when various cultures are on the top of their game R&D wise. The US invented the Internet, so they got to have things like .gov for their government sites. The US invented the telephone system so they get 1 as their country code. The British invented the post office so they don't have to put their country on stamps, everyone else does.

      The Internet shows a lot of slant towards the US because it started there, and developed most fully there first. The US by far had (and still has) the most advanced Internet infrastructure. The invented it, they were there first and best, that is why it is theirs in many ways.

      • by rs79 (71822)

        "That's why IANA, the ultimate top level controller of Internet numbers, is based in the US. It was created there to manage things on ARPANET."

        You don't know what you're talking about. IANA wasn't "created", it's just a name Jon used for that particular task. A task done on contract for DARPA, later NSF. But Jon/IANA never had the authority you assert. Jon got frapped pretty hard by Ira Magaziner when Jon split the root (he put it back, real quick) and when IANA tried to declare what would happen with new t

      • by Xarius (691264)

        The US by far had (and still has) the most advanced Internet infrastructure. The invented it, they were there first and best, that is why it is theirs in many ways.

        I sincerely doubt this, may have been true a decade ago.

  • Then (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fswine (1169091) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @07:11PM (#35823352)
    GRAMMAR NAZI ALERT!

    "a lot faster then expected"

    Do people know the difference between then and than anymore?

    Inappropriate use of your/you're there/their/they're then/than drives me nuts.

    ZerXes, go back to digg.
    • by godrik (1287354)

      Well, I know the difference between 'then' and 'that'. But sometimes, you type one instead of the other one by mistake and you do not spot the mistake when you read it.

      I just received some comments on a 40 pages document I wrote and there are a lot of such mistake. I know they were mistakes but when you read a document so many times you no longer see typos.

      Of course, it's a different story if the same mistake is repeated hundreds of times per page. But it isn't the case here.

      • by Opyros (1153335)

        a lot of such mistake

        You just proved your own point! (Or, to get into the spirit of this thread: You just proved you're own point!)

  • 4,294,967,296 ought to be enough for anybody.

    I won't ever say that unless it involves physical things in numbers greater than the number of atoms in the universe. And damn, if we start making memory out of quarks I'll even be wrong there too...

  • "It is a moral imperative" -- Real Genius

  • by PPH (736903) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @08:44PM (#35824140)

    They're the first to be forced into IPv6. So they'll be further along the learning curve. Welcome our new networking overlords indeed.

    • by jd (1658)

      Not only further along the learning curve, but further along in mass availability. Mass availability = low cost. Low cost = more attractive to customers. I thought America had learned (the hard way) what happens when you ship inferior, expensive products after their car industry collapsed and Japan pwned them. I also thought America had learned (the hard way) what happens when you start behind your competition after they were thrashed by the USSR in the early space race. Catching up was damn expensive.

      But a

      • by PPH (736903)
        We learn from our mistakes so that when we make them again we'll recognize them.
  • Turn running out of IP addresses into a drinking game?
  • where are the ISP's With IPV6 and routers / modems?

    how many have IPV6 some have it but only for revB so you have to re buy the router to get IPv6 and then it's up your ISP to have a IPV6 modem and IPV6 as well.

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...