Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Latin America Exhausts IPv4 Addresses 197

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the bofh-excuse-#666-internet-ran-out-of-addresses dept.
An anonymous reader writes "LACNIC, the regional Internet registry for Latin America and the Caribbean, considers its IPv4 address pool exhausted, because it is down to less than a quarter of an /8, roughly 4 million IPv4 addresses which are reserved for facilitating transitioning mechanisms. Half of those addresses will be assigned on a first come, first served basis, but no more than 1024 addresses per organization every 6 six months. Allocations from the last 2 million addresses will be a maximum of 1024 addresses total per organization. To maintain connectivity, it is now indispensable to make the switch to IPv6. LACNIC's CEO expressed his concern that many operators and companies still haven't taken the steps needed to duly address this circumstance. The RIRs for Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America have all imposed similar limitations on IPv4 assignments when they also crossed their local exhaustion thresholds. As of now, only AfriNIC is not in address exhaustion mode." Joining North America, and Europe/the Middle East/Central Asia.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Latin America Exhausts IPv4 Addresses

Comments Filter:
  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:03AM (#47212439)

    We warned you years ago this would happen! But no-one ever listens.

    • by Chrisq (894406) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:07AM (#47212485)

      We warned you years ago this would happen! But no-one ever listens.

      mañana

    • For years, indeed. I think it was 14 years ago, in 2000, on April Fool's day I announced on a major forum that the internet would be down for about 20 minutes while the root nameservers were switched over to IPv6.

    • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:10AM (#47212511) Homepage

      Ya, you have been warning people that it was going to happen in 2 month for the last 6 years. And this article is still about "almost completely out".

      Your predictions for the v4 "apocalypse" are nothing to brag about.

      • by aevan (903814)
        'Asymptotes never cross zero'. Doesn't mean they don't get damned close, and doesn't mean it's a happy existence. If they dole out 1 address per year we can avoid having to change from IPv4 for millennia!!
      • And this article is still about "almost completely out".

        Where "almost completely out" means, from the article, that:

        2,097,150 of the remaining 4,194,302 addresses may be assigned during this phase, in blocks of limited sizes (assignments) comprising between 256 and 1,024 IP addresses. Likewise, an organization may only request additional resources six months after receiving a prior assignment.

        Technically, the naysayers are right: they're not "out". They're just at the "you can buy two gallons of gas per month" stage. Realistically, no one can get it and certainly not enough at a time to do anything meaningful with it, but there's technically still supply left.

    • by slack_justyb (862874) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:16AM (#47212563)

      If the bulk of human history isn't a lesson. Pretty much no one does anything until all hell is breaking loose. I don't know if it is in our genetics or what.

      At any rate. A lot of "technical" folk will say, let's use NAT! And that will work for maybe a few years, maybe a decade or so, but then eventually that will break down. Finally, people will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess it's finally time we switched over to IPv6." IPv6 is indeed the solution, but we've first got to do every other solution just because for some reason that's who we are.

      So IPv4 isn't going away any time soon but for all the wrong reasons. So they will continue to not listen to any specialists till ALL other options are completely exhausted. Then after all of that we'll finally get to move on to the next big thing that was purposed twenty years ago.

      • by Zorpheus (857617)
        Isn't the problem that only people without an IPv4 address will have problems? If they can not access large parts of the internet, and they are a small minority, it will be up to them to find a solution.
        • by Megane (129182) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:42AM (#47212809) Homepage

          People with only an IPv6 address should theoretically be able to access the IPv4 internet via a sort of v6-to-v4 NAT. It's the people who want to run servers accessed by the rest of the world who really need a real IPv4 address until that distant future when IPv6 finally becomes dominant. (Which won't be for a long while because of all the old computers out there that have either no or insufficient IPv6 support.)

          I think one of the big factors of address consumption has been cell phones. They do not need to be publicly accessible from random IPv4 address, so they are prime candidates for this kind of migration.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by DigiShaman (671371)

            That's why cell phones should be the first to make the switch to IPv6. Those devices are far more numerous and are replaced more often to that of PCs/Servers.

          • by kilodelta (843627)
            Back in the mid 2000's I managed to snag a C Class block of IP's for a government agency. They still hold it now. The reality though even though we had the full 8 bits at the end to play with, we only used about 15 addresses.
          • Which won't be for a long while because of all the old computers out there that have either no or insufficient IPv6 support.

            Just how old are you estimating those old computers are? Windows XP has support for IPv6, as do the first 2.6 Linux kernel. I doubt there's a single smartphone without support for it.

            The only reason we are not using IPv6 all along is because ISPs decided to save some 5% (probably less) of the cost on their last upgrades, or because they actively don't want to supply it.

            • Which won't be for a long while because of all the old computers out there that have either no or insufficient IPv6 support.

              Just how old are you estimating those old computers are? Windows XP has support for IPv6, as do the first 2.6 Linux kernel. I doubt there's a single smartphone without support for it.

              The only reason we are not using IPv6 all along is because ISPs decided to save some 5% (probably less) of the cost on their last upgrades, or because they actively don't want to supply it.

              Actually, all my systems have IPV6, even the antiques.

              It's the routers that lack it.

          • by Ravaldy (2621787)

            Do they actually have an IP address? I didn't think they did. I though they were using a separate network model to pass data from cell towers to devices. I was under the impression that the device number (sim card) was used for communicating data to a specific device. which is also the reason why copying a sim card gets all the data that user is receiving if in the same zone.

            Clarification required. :)

          • (Which won't be for a long while because of all the old computers out there that have either no or insufficient IPv6 support.)

            Windows XP can support IPv6 [microsoft.com] - probably configured when their ISP adds its setup to the installer CD they mail to new customers. Every modern OS supports it natively and decently.

            The migration will suck for dumb embedded devices that can't be upgraded, but most of those are probably reaching EOL anyway. I'd absolutely, 100%, not buy any new devices that don't support native IPv6 today.

            • I'd love to see DSL routers handling IPv6, but (in very limited looking around) I haven't found one yet.

              • My last DSL modem was a bridge and so didn't really care about higher level stuff like IP. Googling for "dsl modem ipv6" turned up quite a few hits, though.
      • by Darinbob (1142669)

        I suspect that the real problem is that NAT does work for most people, when all they really do with their computers is connect to the web or get software updates from Microsoft.

        A big problem is that the people who absolutely should know better do nothing about it. As in two years ago I get a router from my ISP which can not support IPv6, and there's really no excuse for that.

    • We warned you years ago this would happen! But no-one ever listens.

      I think it follows a pattern of an alcoholic: he knows that he should have stopped years ago, but doesn't quit the booze until the doctor says that you're gonna die if you don't give it up.

    • Everyone knew this would happen eventually. No one listened to the chicken littles that were screaming "the sky is falling!" every year for more than a decade.

    • That's exactly the problem.

      When we noticed that IPv4 addresses are nearing an end, we warned. Nobody listened. Why? Because the announced apocalypse didn't happen. Of course, behind the scenes a LOT of juggling has taken place, but management didn't notice anything about it.

      That whole deal repeated time and again, every time v4 addresses neared the end. Every time someone found a way to somehow redistribute the remaining addresses so that nobody "outside the circle" had to notice.

      Our "flaw" was that we only

    • by Ravaldy (2621787)

      This was a known problem in 1999. 15 years later...

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      Could be a problem with your routing protocol.

  • This sounds like Y2K all over again...

    • by JcMorin (930466)
      Yeah soon you won't be able to go on the internet!
    • Re:Y2K (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jareth-0205 (525594) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:20AM (#47212595) Homepage

      This sounds like Y2K all over again...

      What, that legitimate problem lots of people worked on successfully to avoid before it could have major consequences? Yeah, I agree.

      • by Scutter (18425)

        This sounds like Y2K all over again...

        What, that legitimate problem lots of people worked on successfully to avoid before it could have major consequences? Yeah, I agree.

        Yeah, and after all that work to prepare, the rest of the world said "I don't know why you nerds made such a big deal out of this. Nothing happened!" It's enough to make you want to quit your job, cut the soles off your shoes, sit in a tree and learn to play the flute.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:15AM (#47212561)

    Let us know when it gets down to zero available and then we'll spend the weekend fixing it.

  • by Wycliffe (116160) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:20AM (#47212591) Homepage

    If we're too lazy to switch to ipv6 then they need to just start charging per ip.
    $1 per ip per year should be sufficient to cause plenty of ip hoarders to return their stock.
    If that's not enough then increase it to $1 per ip per month. Still small enough that
    it shouldn't really affect anyone too much. My guess is any computer that can't
    absorb a $1/month charge is not an actually computer and should have a private
    10.0 number anyways.

    Charge per ip might also be a good way to help encourage ipv6 switchover.

    • by hankwang (413283)

      "just start charging per ip $1 per ip per year should be sufficient"

      And who should benefit from the $4B/yr revenue? The American government because ICANN is in the US?

      • by Wycliffe (116160)

        "just start charging per ip $1 per ip per year should be sufficient"

        And who should benefit from the $4B/yr revenue? The American government because ICANN is in the US?

        Give it all to ICANN and use the money to convert everyone to ipv6. Give it to the red cross.
        Heck, burn it in a bonfire for that matter to help reduce inflation. It doesn't really matter.
        The point is that there are ALOT of idle ips out there and if the people sitting on them had
        to fork over cash each year/month for them then they would have an incentive to give them up.
        Right now if you are lucky enough or powerful enough to have a bunch you have very little
        incentive to give them up. You actually have sev

    • Here's the weird part.. I have several Xen/Linux virtual servers thru a vps hosting company.. They include 2 ipv4 addresses and 6 ipv6 addresses with each vps.. On one of my vps, since I host two different sites on it, the two ipv4 addresses are kinda handy.. However, on several others, I have zero need/use for more than one ipv4 address.. I asked their support to take the unneeded addresses back, since ipv4 addresses are in short supply.. Their response? Don't worry, we have plenty... Huh???
      I wonder how of

    • If we're too lazy to switch to ipv6 then they need to just start charging per ip.
      $1 per ip per year should be sufficient to cause plenty of ip hoarders to return their stock.
      If that's not enough then increase it to $1 per ip per month. Still small enough that
      it shouldn't really affect anyone too much. My guess is any computer that can't
      absorb a $1/month charge is not an actually computer and should have a private
      10.0 number anyways.

      Meanwhile disaggregation is not free and carries global costs on routing infrastructure not everyone has the resources to bear. Taking back addresses is like air lifting new deck chairs onto the titanic with much heavier solid lead versions to help the boat sink faster.

      http://blog.pierky.com/avoid-c... [pierky.com]

      We are quickly approaching the point where it takes more effort to be "lazy" than it does to deploy ipv6.

    • Holy shit, that's like sixteen million per year (or month) for every organization on this list [wikipedia.org].

      But to be honest, most of them could probably absorb the annual fee without batting an eye.

    • by houghi (78078)

      It woyuld not be good, It would be GREAT. That way the end user gives even more money to the providers without actualy having a need to invest.

      And those are also the ones who need to invest in I{v6 and you wonder why they don't?

      • by Wycliffe (116160)

        It woyuld not be good, It would be GREAT. That way the end user gives even more money to the providers without actualy having a need to invest.

        And those are also the ones who need to invest in I{v6 and you wonder why they don't?

        You're assuming the provider gets to keep this money but the providers is who has to pay the fee not the end-user.
        In many cases the end user is already paying more than this for a static IP and the provider will likely pass this on to
        the end-user but the end-user is not the hoarders. The hoarders are the thousands of businesses that have unused ips.
        It's easy to pass on a $1 charge to a end-user if there is an end-user but if you have 1k ips sitting idle and now you
        have to pay for them then you might decide

    • by Ksevio (865461)
      First, $1 is pretty cheap, especially for a large organization with lots of IPs

      The bigger problem is: How do people give back IPs? Say 4 people give back their spare IPs to the ISP. The ISP now has 4 extras randomly distributed in a block that they could give out if needed, but that just means complicated routing if they want to return them to the general pool.

      In the amount of time a system could be created to take them back, and convince all the corporations/organizations to return them, they'll be e
  • Not saying it's not possible but all of the cable modem they've put out that is IP6 compatable has it's IP6 disabled, I've feeling there are going to be a lot of accounts on one address (Nat) style.

    Not that disappointed, using a HOSTS file and working with IP4 address I've a bit of sense about them, IP6 I couldn't tell you if I've seen it before or not, age does play a bit into this/

    • by synapse7 (1075571)

      I could swear I setup a router for somebody on a charter modem and a ping from a windows box to google.com returned an ipv6 address..
       
      Also, I've been using HE ipv6 tunnel since the first ipv6 day(whenver that was) over a charter modem with good results. Traceroutes over ipv6 are often shorter than ipv4.

    • by Sanians (2738917)

      Not saying it's not possible but all of the cable modem they've put out that is IP6 compatable has it's IP6 disabled

      If you're looking at the modem's status page (192.168.100.1) and it says IPv4-Only, that actually has nothing to do with whether you have IPv6.

      The quick and easy way to find out is to just run "tcpdump -n ip6" and see if anything shows up. I didn't realize I had IPv6 until I did that, as the configuration changes I made to Linux to support a Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel rendered it unable to configure itself automatically with my native IPv6. Even after knowing it was there, it took me a couple of days

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:06PM (#47213043)

    1024 per 6 months per organization.

    So what will organizations do? Right. Reserve 1024 IP addresses every 6 months, need them or not, because they MIGHT need a few 1000 down the road at some time. Chances are they don't, but "just in case".

    Our government tried to limit water use by cutting off water supply whenever it got scarce. Can you imagine how much water got wasted? The reason is simple, people filled every kind of container (bathrub, sinks, buckets, even coffee cups) whenever water was available, only to drain it whenever water got available again to refill with fresh water...

  • Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:18PM (#47213173) Journal

    These kinds of stories have been popping up on Slashdot for a while, but I note Slashdot *STILL* doesn't have an IPv6 address even though it's a site supposedly run by and for technologists. Meanwhile, Facebook, a site made for teenagers to post selfies on, has had IPv6 support for three or four years.

  • > As of now, only AfriNIC is not in address exhaustion mode."

    That is not true - ARIN (north America's RiR) is still handing out IPv4's and will continue to do so until down to their last /10.

    https://www.arin.net/resources... [arin.net]

  • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @01:27PM (#47214035) Homepage
    This is a solved problem. As one of the smartest and most knowledgeable computer experts in the world, Stephen Fry, has said, all they need to do is register a .uk domain to generate new IP numbers [theregister.co.uk].
  • It's world cup. big titted groupies and cheap beer. screw this internet shit.

  • IPV6 is like the iPhone *c and *s models that everyone skips while waiting for the next version -- not enough new features, the current one is good enough, and "polycarbonate" doesn't that just mean "plastic"?

Do not simplify the design of a program if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.

Working...