IPv6 Adoption Up 300 Percent Over 2 Years 425
Mark.J - ISPreview writes "The Number Resource Organization, which is made up of the five Regional Internet Registries, has revealed that the rate of new entrants into the IPv6 routing system has increased by 300% over the past two years. The news is important because IPv4 addresses (e.g. 123.23.56.98), which are assigned to your computer periodically, are running out. IPv6 addressing (e.g. 2ffe:1800:3525:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf) was invented as a longer and more secure replacement." IPv6 is still gaining ground slowly, particularly in the US.
wow (Score:5, Insightful)
And the rate of downloads of Ubuntu 8.10 is up infinity percent in the past two years.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In other news, every milk drinker in the past 5 centuries have died and Franco is still dead!
up 300%? (Score:5, Funny)
you mean it went from 1 person to 3 people?
Re:up 300%? (Score:5, Funny)
No, up by 300% would means there are now 4 users.
</pedant>
Re:up 300%? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:up 300%? (Score:4, Informative)
We get it from basic English skills. It's "up 300%" not "300% of what it was".
1 -> 3 = 300% of what it was.
1 -> 4 = up 300%.
Again:
300% x 1 = 3
1 + 3 = 4
no, your numbers are wrong (Score:5, Funny)
1. start with 1 throwaway silly joke
1
2. multiply that by the Humorlessness constant
1 * H
3. add 300% overhead cost of a mediocre informative rating
1 * H * 300%
4. factor by the coefficient of who gives a shit
F(1 * H * 300%)W
and you are left with 3 users of IPv6
so there
Re:up 300%? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:up 300%? (Score:4, Funny)
Son of a.... *hangs head, hands over geek card*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If something increases by 100%, that means it doubles, not stays the same. Induction can take it from here.
So going up 300% means doubling 3 times ?
Re:up 300%? (Score:5, Funny)
wow. I mean, like.. wow
Where the heck do you guys get 4 from?
--
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie.
I guess you worked out "Evolution is a lie" is three words using the same calculation you made above.
300%? (Score:2, Informative)
Obviously technologically superior (Score:5, Funny)
The news is important because IPv4 addresses (e.g. 123.23.56.98), which are assigned to your computer periodically, are running out. IPv6 addressing (e.g. 2ffe:1800:3525:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf) was invented as a longer and more secure replacement.
Look! IPv4 addresses just have numbers and dots. IPv6 addresses have numbers AND letters . . . and colons (TWO stacked dots)!
No question, which one is better, and tastes better, and lasts longer, and is less filling.
I'd like the IPv6 prefix dead:beef, please and thank, you.
Re: (Score:2)
7AC7:1E55
IPv6 address for slashdot.org (Score:5, Insightful)
Any chance Slashdot could get IPv6 connectivity?
Progress in this direction is "stuff that matters", after all...
Do you remember CSS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do remember how long it took /. to move from a tablefest of tagsoup to a CSS-based design? A good 10 years, give or take.
IPv6?
Re: (Score:2)
*ducks
Enough jokes about it going from 1 to 3 people.... (Score:2)
Seriously, what percentage of internet nodes are now IPv6 compliant? Anyone have those numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, what percentage of internet nodes are now IPv6 compliant? Anyone have those numbers?
Not many. Certainly not enough to make even simple web browsing do-able over IPv6. Anyone with IPv6 connectivity right now is tunneling most of their traffic.
Does Slashdot even have IPv6 connectivity?
I'll switch when my ISP does (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest thing holding me back from switching is that my ISP [verizon.com] doesn't seem to care one whiff about switching. The only way I have available to get on is to set up a tunnel, which seems to defeat the entire purpose of IPv6. I don't want to run IPv6 just for the sake of saying that I run IPv6, I want to run it so I can have an address for every device and finally get rid of the annoying NAT solutions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Expect mobile phone companies to switch first. They are already NATing most of their customers when they want IPv4, but their next generation networks are IP-only and run everything else on top of IP. Using NAT will be a colossal pain for this, because they only have 2^24 (around 16 million) IPs in the 10/8 range and most mobile phone companies have a lot more than 16 million customers. You could NAT each cell, but then you'd have massive routing issues. Running IPv6 natively is going to be a much easie
Who needs to do what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do I need to make some change to my router? My computer? Should I be calling my ISP demanding that they make the change?
Yes.
You'd need a computer capable of dealing with IPv6. For the most part, currently-available operating systems are ok. Windows XP, Vista, just about any flavor of Linux/BSD, and Mac OS X all support IPv6.
You'll also need a router that can deal with IPv6. I have yet to see any home-grade router that supports IPv6.
You'll also need an ISP that will give you IPv6 service. There are precious few of them out there.
You'll also need sites that support IPv6, unless you just want to tunnel everything.
Re: (Score:2)
User traceability & Up 300% from a tiny base (Score:2)
Yes, IPv6 is up. It could hardly be otherwise from such a small base. However, I still have major concerns about privacy/anonymity/security and separately about overhead.
I would not be at all surprised to see IPv6 as the choice of policemen and totalitarian states. Far easier user traceability.
So where is the IPv4 to IPv6 translator servers? (Score:2)
Seems like we all could switch over fairly easily if there was a DNS type of system for translating between the address spaces.
Would work like this:
Every current IPv4 address would be assigned a concurrent IPv6 address.
When a client node requests an IPv4 address, that request gets routed to a DNS type server somewhere close by which translates it to an IPv6 address and passes the request on to the proper end node along with the requesters IPv4 address for return responses which then get routed similarly.
As
So what? What should I be doing? (Score:2)
We're a small company, in a small office. We have a T1, we run a Windows domain, and host our own web and mail servers. We have NAT inside the office, and holes poked through our firewall for the external facing servers. We're all on XP workstations. What should we be doing, if anything?
At home, I'm on a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Next, you deploy 6to4 on your routers and start running dual-stack clients. Then call your ISP again and say 'we're currently using 6to4, but we want to disable this soon and switch to a proper v6 address, do we nee
Reserve an IPV6 block (Score:2)
How would I go about reserving an IPv6 block for myself? Is there a central agency controlling that yet? Is a reservation free, or is there a periodic payment?
Re: (Score:2)
Go through Freenet. There are so many addresses available that they give them away without effort:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5988 [linuxjournal.com]
Make it work! (Score:3, Interesting)
I seriously considering setting up my internal network for IPv6 and trying to get connected to the web via IPv6, but ran into so many roadblocks that I just gave up.
It's no wonder adoption is so slow if this is the way things are.
The US is lagging (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm wondering how far behind the popular adoption of IPv6, the nay-say'ers admissions that they were wrong will lag.
Progress will never happen. Things will always be the way they are now. There's no reason to change now, and there never will be. Pshaw.
How IPv6 will happen, and why it hasn't yet (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem with IPv6's slow adoption is that no transition scenario was ever devised. The protocol was spec'd, implemented, debugged and ... that's it. Nobody ever asked the question, who's gonna switch and why?
Currently, if you want to use the Internet, you need to be on IPv4. The only existing transition mechanisms are those which allows an IPv4 host to emulate IPv6 on top of it. And 100% of any other hosts you might be interested in talking to are on IPv4, even if they happen to also be on IPv6. So basically, in the rare cases where you can use IPv6, you can also use IPv4 to do the exact same thing.
So there's no point.
What's missing here (and has been missing since the beginning of IPv6) is a mechanism whereby an IPv6-only host can talk to an IPv4 host. I believe there's something called "nat64" that's being worked on, but it's in preliminary stages.
Here's how it's going to happen: for a veeery long time (10, 20 years), most corporate networks will remain IPv4 only. They have no reason to switch. It's not just network stacks, it's networking equipment, firewall rules, inertia but also stupidity and incompetence. Consider this: right now, there are major websites still incompatible with Explicit Congestion Notification. It's not that they just don't implement it; it's that their networking equipment suffers from a 10+ year old bug that prohibits hosts with ECN enabled to access them. Non-buggy stacks just ignore the bit and let packets through, buggy ones silently drop the packets and cause the connection to hang. This used to be the case on www.cnn.com up until a few months ago, and is still happening on www.afp.com.
Instead, it's mobile networks that will implement IPv6. There is not even enough addresses in a class A (10.0.0.0/24) to even give addresses to all mobiles phones in an European country. It's trivial to implement proxies for HTTP and other common protocols, so that those mobile devices will be able to see CNN.com. But obviously, it would be much better to have a way to NAT those devices onto IPv4.
Technically, IPv6 is running out as well (Score:4, Funny)
It's just there a lot more to go until the end~
Hey, I did say technically.
For everyone who says v4 isn't running out (Score:5, Insightful)
2) NAT is not a proper solution. It crosses the Network and Transport layer boundary to provide a hack solution to a Network layer issue. Having something like NAT prevents anything besides UDP or TCP from being used behind a NAT, since NAT relies on port mapping between UDP and NAT
3) What makes people think uPNP is a good idea? Wouldn't it be better to just have *real end-to-end connectivity* like was actually intended and used to be the case?
4) As the world of networked devices and content providers increases as fast as it always has been or faster there will be a growing need for content providers (servers) that cannot be behind a NAT while still hoping to use well-known ports for services
5) NAT does not scale. State tracking tens of thousands of connections? Since state needs to be tracked, load balancing something like NAT is just yet another hack on top of a hack.
I would love to hear someone explain how using NAT is a feasible solution permanently. Reclaiming unused sub-allocations from legacy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
6) NAT aggravates the problem of a limited port addressing space. you've got 65535 ports, and a lot of those are intended for specific protocols. Also, anyone who thinks NAT is a solution should try running 2 HTTPS servers behind it.
Out cruising the IPv6 space one day... (Score:3, Funny)
"Woah, a Duke Nukem Forever server? No way. How long has this been sitting here?!?"
Re: (Score:2)
That's the first thing I did, too (thinking a "why you post my address?" post was probably lame). It timed out after some 25 hops.
Trying it again now, whatever it is -- it's slashdotted! Oops, sorry I guess.
First time we've slashdotted an unknown target?
Re: (Score:2)
By "back to my laptop" did you mean actually back to your IP address or to a hostname called 'localhost'. My last 3 hops are:
15 localhost (123.30.120.65) 278.356 ms 279.295 ms 280.059 ms
16 localhost (123.30.120.22) 282.366 ms 283.057 ms 283.577 ms
17 203.162.184.114 (203.162.184.114) 284.300 ms 273.151 ms 273.795 ms
18 * * *
If you do an NSlookup on 123.30.120.* it resolves to localhost but it's not my 'localhost'.
Re:Fun with statistics (Score:5, Funny)
Why is that lying?
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:5, Informative)
God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.
And everyone who's a network admin knows that it is.
Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.
Great, so I can re-write every application to support a half-assed workaround like NAT. I'd much rather have each host bugging the crap out of the router to forward a specific port, please! than to just get the migration over with and be done with it. If you think that NAT+uPNP is a replacement for IPv6, then you need to find a hobby more suited to your skill level.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
rewrite? What world are you living in where you didn't already have to do that? The corp where I work has a huge number of ip4 addresses, and we actually average about 1 per business unit...That's not even 10% of our assigned ips. Even if we wanted to put more things directly on the net, we'd never be able to afford the corporate mandated security architecture for every exposed machine.
Sounds to me like you're the one living in hobby-land. Most machines don't need an externally accessible IP.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:5, Insightful)
Most machines don't need an externally accessible IP.
Unless they want to use something as exotic and unpopular as BitTorrent, you might be right.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking corporations here, but I'll bite. I use bitorrent at home through a NAT. Works fine. I have a static IP, but the machine that has that IP isn't the machine I use for bittorrent.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:4, Informative)
Many people do not want IPv6 because getting set up for it will be expensive and time consuming.
Except it's not.
Remembering or just typing an IP will be much more of a bitch.
I haven't typed my IP since I added it to DNS.
And some people don't want machines to have publicly accessible IPs.
Then don't open the firewall.
I for one don't want my fucking toaster or condoms
I think (hope!) you didn't mean it that way.
to have IP addresses.
Then don't plug them into the LAN.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh, I meant to say more before I posted. Anyway, here's the rest:
The main reason I mentioned publicly addressable hosts was that the OP brought it up when he mentioned UPnP in conjunction with NAT. No, you don't need (or want) every host to be directly reachable. When you do, though, a real end-to-end solution like IPv6 is vastly preferable to a slew of machines behind the NAT asking for port allocations.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:5, Informative)
Most machines don't need an externally accessible IP.
Which has nothing to do with the IPv4 vs IPv6 debate. Regardless of which stack you use, you are never forced to have externally accessible IP addresses. This is what firewalls, routers, and reserved, non-routable addresses are for.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with IPv4 isn't really that we're running out of addresses, although that could become an issue in the near future. No, the problem is routing. Reallocating the remaining IPv4 addresses would mean abandoning any presence toward maintaining hierarchical subnets. High-level routers would need to know where to send packets based on not just the /8 or /16 prefix, but perhaps /24 -- or worse. That's potentially millions of additional records in every router, when we're already having trouble with an explosion of routing-table entries. IPv6, on the other hand, has enough bits in just the upper (network) portion of the address (/64) to permit purely hierarchical routing to the ISP level, which means that the routing tables become far simpler. There's no need for each router to know about dozens -- perhaps hundreds, or thousands -- of minuscule disjoint subnets serviced by each ISP.
The other advantages of IPv6, such as improved security and access to a routable /48 subnet for each local network, are merely bonuses. The routing issues alone are sufficient justification to migrate.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm quite happy with NAT.
Re: (Score:2)
Just what are you writing that your apps require a public IP?
As mentioned in another comment, I was responding to the OP's mention of NAT+UPnP as a substitute for public addressing.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of them.
Any kind of webserver. Try running two of them on the same IP address.
Of the above, especially websites using SSL. Can't have more than one per IP address.
FTP is a horrible pain when NAT is involved.
Many video conference applications.
Programs like instant messengers with file transfer.
BitTorrent and any form of P2P in general.
IPsec in transport mode
Many games. Two players trying to play online doesn't work at all with some games, no matter how much you fiddle with NAT.
Remote desktop. When troubleshooting, I can't just ask the person I'm helping to install VNC, because then I'd have to explain to them how open the port.
I'm sure the list can get a good deal longer, but this seems enough.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We're using OpenBSD's FTP proxy [openbsd.org]. It works well, and is easy to set up (much easier than it used to be, anyway).
IPv6, DNSSEC, and ubiquitous SSL or IPSec are things that are long overdue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't say "two websites" he said "two webservers".
Re: (Score:2)
OK explain how you are going to make a batch file work to open a port on their NAT router? Unless the router has upnp you're out of luck.
But VNC does have a reverse connection. Thing going for it. But that still requires him to open ports on his side if the supporter has nat going on as well.
The parent may find that useful.
The internet is supposed to be peer to peer. Peer to peer has it's advantages. Better pings in games, less bandwidth used up since triangle routing does not have to be used. There is plen
Re: (Score:2)
All of these are just workarounds for the very problems that NAT causes. In other words, with ipv6, I don't need virtual hosting, or strange batch files that open up ports. Instead, "it just works".
Re: (Score:2)
Any kind of webserver. Try running two of them on the same IP address.
Seriously? I guess you have never heard of virtual hosting.
I don't think virtual hosting works all that well across multiple servers, especially when the router doesn't know which server to send the packets to.
Re: (Score:2)
As he said, virtual hosts don't support SSL. That's why you won't see cheap hosts offer you an SSL option.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite happy with NAT.
Then your networking needs are simplistic at best. Take a look at how many coders are forced to implement "NAT punch-through" - and this is for fairly simplistic requirements. Wouldn't it be nice if the networking stack actually took care of the end-to-end details - as intended? And there are still times where heavily NAT'd networks still have problems with "NAT punch-through" if the need is as complex as peer to peer. Ya, I know...complex stuff like peer to peer. Wow.
Wouldn't it b
The potential of IPv6 is kinda scary. (Score:5, Interesting)
And everyone who's a network admin knows that it is.
You're right, 100%, and I fully support IPv6 adoption end to end, because I know managing port assignments is a pain in the ass for non-UPnP compatible apps, and the problems that NAT has created. Even more absurd is the solutions to those problems (e.g. Skype-style) that are more like hacks than fixes.
NAT has created a very lazy fix to the problem of network security and filtering. If you're behind NAT, you're not addressable unless UPnP or an explicit port forward does it for you, and that's extremely convenient.
In a situation where every single computer in a network is internet addressable (something not always desired in business, which is probably the reason IPv6 adoption is so slow), you have to implement a very strict firewall to block and filter unsolicited traffic to those machines. If you're NATing them, as long as your network is physically secure, you don't have a problem.
This puts a lot less stress on network security than there should be in a business environment, and much less attention to what should or shouldn't be allowed through a local firewall, let alone a site firewall.
I'll stop ranting, but the point is that NAT has created an artificial deficit of proper network security, and I fear that when IPv6 becomes ubiquitous, NAT will linger on as a replacement for real security. The skills required to secure a fully addressable network of machines simply aren't needed in the majority of current environments because making every host in a network internet addressable today is simply not an option.
Re:The potential of IPv6 is kinda scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a lazy, extremely convenient fix sound like a bad thing ;)
Re:The potential of IPv6 is kinda scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
This puts a lot less stress on network security than there should be in a business environment, and much less attention to what should or shouldn't be allowed through a local firewall, let alone a site firewall.
I disagree. Say your current NAT setup is:
The firewall equivalent is:
The decision making process is identical. You've already decided which ports are which machines should be exposed, and that's the hard part! Once you're past that, the semantics of NAT and a "default deny" firewall are almost identical.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:4, Interesting)
Or intelligently design protocols to assume that not everyone has a direct IP back to them? In the early days of online gaming, one had to forward easily a half-dozen ports (UDP, and maybe 3 ports TCP) to play online. These days, it's normally 1 UDP and 1 TCP port, if that.
IPv6 won't change any of the issues seen with NAT. At best, you'll have a firewall blocking incoming connections to all but a single IP (the system providing the gateway and firewall), so you'll juat have huge spaces of IPv6 addresses that are unreachable anyways. So your toilet might have a real live IPv6 address, but it's not reachable outside the local network anyhow. Heck, that gateway may very well perform NAT on IPv6. To assume all the issues with NAT, firewalls, etc, go away magically by using IPv6 is naive - they're still going to be around. At the minimum, there's going to be firewalls up, and apps will still have to request people poke holes in it somehow. Most likely, nothing will change.
Despite having all these addresses available to them, most ISPs will probably just offer the user 1 or 2 IP addresses (though, an IPv4 and IPv6 address), and charge them an extra $5/month for another one. Or maybe they'll get a clue and give them a pile of addresses, to which the user will probably just stick a router in and use 1 address. And might as well stick all the machines behind it in the private address range anyhow.
IPv6 is important because we're running out of addresses (or some countries already have). But unless the protocol mandates things like evil bits and other junk, people are still going to put up firewalls, NAT-based routers, etc, and we're really just going to end up in the same situation we're in now. Everyone talks grand of "even your toilet can be connected", then it just takes someone to say "well, if it is, I don't want people to hack into it". IPv6 won't save us from buggy exploitable services, spam, OSes with poor default security, etc. The only thing it may save us from is that portscanning blocks of IPs got significantly harder, but botnets are good for that sort of thing. Heck, even exploits have seemed to work around the fact that a good chunk of people are behind a firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Quit assuming there's always a client and a server. Ever heard of P2P?
Re: (Score:2)
There is always a server. Even multicast has a server.
However, with P2P, a client acts like a server some of the time, and as a client others. It fills both roles as needed.
Quit talking out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We pay $8-$10/mo each for our ~150 IP addresses, and we're a relatively small company.
I really don't think $1/year will make that much difference.
Re: (Score:2)
We do the same, and we have a huge number of unused addresses. The way they're sold, you end up getting x with each class of line, so you buy a T2 or a T3 and you get a big pile of addresses, but we nat and proxy everything so we use hardly any of them.
Hell, I get 5 free with my DSL account, and 5 bucks more a month wouldn't be a deal breaker even there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The scheme would not be targeted at people like you. It's targeted at institutions like MIT, Ford and Halliburton. If they each had to start coughing up $24 million per year to hold onto their sparsely used /8 IP blocks, they'd be clamoring to unload them.
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:5, Informative)
Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.
NAT is a hack, and uPNP is not universally supported -- not in the routers themselves, and not in every program you might want t ob accessible.
Besides which, there are a limited number of ports, and you're still preventing people from picking a standard port and leaving it open, to connect to it later -- for instance, if my ISP NATs me, how do I ssh or vpn back home? Let alone run a webserver out of my house..
That's not even getting into all the millions of unused IP's being held by the early internet companies.
True, but consider that IPv6 would prevent anything like that from happening again.
Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.
I'd also very likely see my own public-facing IP go away, and more and more ISPs NAT-ing all their customers -- who are then doubly-NATed behind their routers -- which is then a gigantic pain in the ass to deal with, versus simply upgrading to ipv6.
I'd also likely see my hosting costs go up a bit.
All to manage this artificial scarcity, and push it back for awhile -- which could be so easily dealt with by simply upgrading to ipv6, and giving an IP address to every device on the planet -- and, as a nice side effect, making it possible for me to assign a public-facing IP address and DNS entry for every toaster in my house.
Re: (Score:2)
making it possible for me to assign a public-facing IP address and DNS entry for every toaster in my house.
Awesome, I can't wait till I can read a howto article that has the following:
It's true... (Score:2)
Most of the big blocks of addresses are *very* badly distributed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks [wikipedia.org]
Does Palo Alto research center need 24 million IP addresses? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Look how much the US DoD is taking up. Holy shit!
Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (Score:5, Insightful)
God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.
There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.
That really isn't entirely true.
NAT and uPnP may work well for your average home user... But it causes some headaches in larger networks. And if you've got a pile of servers that need to be globally accessible - like webservers - you don't really have an alternative to multiple IP addresses.
That's not even getting into all the millions of unused IP's being held by the early internet companies.
This is certainly true. There are several huge blocks of IP addresses sitting unused. Freeing these up would go a long way towards keeping IPv4 alive. At least for a while...
IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.
It might very well vanish overnight... But it'll return eventually. The fact of the matter is that we keep coming up with new reasons to route information over the Internet. And all these new devices and gadgets require an IP address.
One of the cities that we support recently bought a new chiller for their ice rink. Their old one was just managed in-house. You had to be standing in front of the device to do much of anything. And if it was malfunctioning they had to send someone out to eyeball the machine. Their new one has a network jack and can be monitored remotely through a web interface. So we had to get them bandwidth and a static IP address so they could keep an eye on things even when nobody was physically at the civic center.
Sure, there are some absolutely stupid and frivolous things we're doing these days. Folks don't need to be able to surf the Internet from their microwave oven. But it is getting to the point where we expect to be able to gather information from just about everything, and view it just about everywhere. Folks expect to be able to hit Google or Wikipedia from their cell phones. Lots of industrial equipment can be managed remotely. I know I routinely troubleshoot issues remotely.
To a certain degree we can hide these devices behind NAT... I can have a dozen web-enabled appliances in my house and just use different ports forwarded through a single NAT'ed IP address to access them. But what about devices that don't necessarily sit behind a router? What about my web-enabled phone?
And what happens when the ISPs start running out of addresses? Are they going to install giant NAT routers themselves? Are we going to wind up with several layers of NAT?
Re: (Score:2)
Ju
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try LogMeIn or GoToMyPC, or something similar. I manage nearly 100 remote PCs thru LogMeIn, and only 3 of them have static IPs.
I think you're kind of missing the point of my post.
I use LogMeIn for quite a few things. I've got it installed on my home computer, my work computer, and dozens of client computers. It works very well for me. It's a great solution for folks who can't or won't pay for a static IP address. But LogMeIn doesn't somehow magically negate the need for an IP address.
If you've got bandwidth, you've got an IP address. And more and more devices have bandwidth these days. Which means more and more IP addresses i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, NAT is wonderful.
Like when I want to play a game online with me, a friend in my house, and people over the internet. Then we're sometimes confronted with that the game wants specifically port 12345 on UDP open, and there's no way to NAT that to two computers at once. There goes at least half an hour of everybody's time, plus another half an hour to convince the less technical players that no, it's not working and it's not going to.
UPNP doesn't solve this problem, and is yet another horrible hack that s
Re: (Score:2)
UPNP doesn't solve this problem, and is yet another horrible hack that should never have existed in the first place, along with NAT. Thanks to UPNP any crap you get infected with can request the router to open a port for it to receive instructions. Isn't that wonderfully convenient?
Don't forget that with UPnP, the router is usually your firewall as well, and both the firewall and NAT get configured. If you had a public address, UPnP wouldn't be needed, but you would still need to open the port on the firewall. So, at first glance you would think that UPnP doesn't hurt vs public addresses... but I would hope you wouldn't sit naked (without a firewall).
Ramble over.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope you wouldn't sit naked (without a firewall).
I do. Of course I run a reasonably secure OS, not that pile of junk Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That only works so long that:
1. You're the only one who has this problem. Doesn't work when two other people are also going to share a connection.
2. You can convince everybody that they move to your server. There can be a serious hassle in getting maps, mods, patches and so on set up.
3. Your connection has enough bandwidth and low enough latency to work a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.
Yeah, unless you still hold out hopes that the internet could live up to its original promise of being a network of peers, where a person's home computer could be their server when they are out.
Throwing people behind ever increasing layers of NAT erodes the functionality of the internet. If your goal is simply to disprove that IP addresses are running out, that may be acceptable. If you don't w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.
There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.
I'm so tired of seeing someone post this rubbish every time these articles come out. uPNP is a security issue and many routers either don't support it or smartly have it turned off. NAT is a hak at best and limits the power of users while creating no end of issu
Re: (Score:2)
Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible{/i>
and also not universal. there's also NAT-PMP and they don't interoperate. so if you've got a router supporting UPnP, and your machine/app supports NAT-PMP then it's not gonna work.
dave
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Please, next time you feel the urge to post nonsensical drivel, think about it first. NAT + uPNP is NOT perfectly capable and compatible. It's a fucking ugly hack, causing numerous security issues or making them worse like the last DNS vulnerability. Also, if all the IPv4 ips would be sanely distributed and rationed, people calculated that we'd only gain a few months, a year more tops until the pool runs out completely.
Why charge for IPs when all you need is to switch to a
Re: (Score:2)
Why charge for IPs when all you need is to switch to a different numbering, solving the problem properly?
Because the members of the oligopoly that run the Intenet industry know that charging for a scarce resource is a great revenue generator. They're not going to go through a bunch of effort just to give up that income opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.
You miss the point.
Internet now has much much more participants than 10 years ago.
IPv4 are running out because compromise was made on management side. Essentially, Internet management is loose because people want to encourage participation. Do not forget that Internet is merely set of connected proprietary networks, operated by all possible entities. And every of the entities wants to have some address space to grow.
I frankly do not see any problem with going to IPv6 as most of the network equipme
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinarily, I'd be the last person on earth who'd suggest charging a fee for entirely virtual goods. The current domain registration and SSL certificate signing systems are both a complete farce at best and a bloody scam at worst.
But there has to be better management of IPv4. I've worked for (or with) ISPs and web hosting providers who waste IPs like
Oh yeah, uPnP, nice, nice (Score:2)
Have you ever looked at the specs? Did you understand anything?
I thought so.
Here's a simple case where you can't argue there's enough IPv4. Soon all mobile phones will be IP capable. Each having a unique address would be nice. BOOM! Impossible with IPv4. Not even enough room in 10.0.0.0/24 *right now* to put all mobile phones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable
Spoken like someone who grew up with NAT being the norm. NAT is terribly broken, and UPNP is even worse. There shouldn't be a need to resort to hack-upon-hack to get networking to work. I long for the day when I only have to worry about routing & firewalling on my network again.
That's not even getting into all the millions of unused IP's being held by the early internet companies.
IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.
Great, $1 per IP. 2^32-1 possible IPs... that's only a touch over $4B per year. Who want to bet that Microsoft would eat up all it could, just to have control? Hell, at that price I'd buy a couple hundred just for me. Star
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Phone numbers are NOT running out (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP.
There's no reason everyone needs their own phone number, either. In the old days, several houses shared the same phone number. Calls were distinguished by different rings. They got along just fine with that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The way it actually looks, why not just use MAC addresses?
IIRC, it does. I thought it appended the MAC address to the first part of the IP, and the second part is assigned(statically?) by the DHCP(?) server.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which part are you complaining about? The use of hex? The use of colons? The length? The use of hexadecimal digits is to make it shorter, I think (since the addresses are so long). I believe the colons are to unambiguously distinguish them from IPv4 addresses.
One thing the summary didn't show was the use of the double-colon. IPv6 addresses commonly have long sequences of zeroes in them, so you can write something like 3f::4:1e:f106 and everything between the :: is zeroes (enough zeroes to make it the right
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 has 64-bit addresses. MAC addresses are only 48-bits wide. Some addressing schemes use MAC addresses as part of the address to ensure no IP conflicts can exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why but I was always under the impression that an ipv6 ip looked more like ipv4, ie, 192.168.1.1.1.1. The way it actually looks, why not just use MAC addresses?
You could, probably, represent both IPv4 and IPv6 identically if you really wanted to... I mean, ultimately, they're both binary numbers. It isn't like the computer is actually dealing with dotted decimals - that's just to make it human-readable.
IPv6 uses hexadecimal instead of just plain decimal to make things shorter. Otherwise the addresses would be simply ginormous. And it uses colons, instead of periods, to unambiguously distinguish it from IPv4.
As far as using MAC addresses... The only reason the
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe the main reason IPv6 adoption is so low is because it's looks like shit.
Why couldn't we go x.x.x.x.x.x? Or make it 8 xs, or 16, or heck even 64 and make the unused ones "cleared". It's a lot easier to go 192.168.0.1 is my router, as opposed to 3443::43fff:#434434:FFDdfffd:FD3443 which is what my mind thinks when I see IPv6; a bunch of random mumble jumble, and this coming from someone who finds Perl legible.
IPv6 is a problem masquerading as a solution looking for a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)