Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
The Internet Networking

Who Will Fix the Internet? No One, Apparently 370

blackbearnh writes "It seems like everyone focuses on the latest and greatest killer Internet applications, but the underlying infrastructure that all of them run on is showing its age. That's the claim made by a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor. IPv4 is relatively ancient, and even stalled improvements like IPv6 aren't significant enough to matter, according to some researchers. With no one 'in charge' of the Internet, it's almost impossible to get any sweeping technical improvements made, especially since there's no financial incentive on the part of the ISPs and telecoms to invest in basic infrastructure. CalTech Professor John Doyle puts it this way: 'To the extent I've been working in this field for the last 10 years, I've been mostly working on band-aids. I'm really trying to get out of that business and try to help the people, the few people, who are really trying to think more fundamentally about what needs to be done.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who Will Fix the Internet? No One, Apparently

Comments Filter:
  • by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @09:58AM (#29200933)

    Let the porn industry fix the internet. They're responsible for most of the traffic.

    • by Dyinobal ( 1427207 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:19AM (#29201279)
      Not sure the Christian science monitor will like that answer.
      • by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @12:22PM (#29203527) Homepage

        Clearly you don't know what the Christian Science Monitor [] is. The CSM is not only widely regarded, winning numerous (ironically) Pulitzer Prizes, but given it's awesome "Fuck you, you lying douche bag, Joseph Pulitzer!" origin, it's positively punk rock.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dbcad7 ( 771464 )
          Actually their stories, which are content in Yahoo, often seem to be rants presented as facts.. But to address the statement of "The Christian Science Monitor wouldn't like that answer".. well they wouldn't even hear the answer, because they throw out those rants with no way for readers to respond or comment on what they present.. almost like they are preaching or something.
          • no way to respond? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by manaway ( 53637 ) *

            Well there are 2 links to respond to them at the bottom of every page; labeled "Feedback" and "Contact Us." Certainly they're not like Slashdot where they're mostly commentary, but then not every site can be nor should be. You could, though, submit a Christian Science Monitor article to Slashdot and probably start a quite good discussion.

            As for their articles often being rants, I'll sometimes think someone is ranting when I disagree with them. Often articles are written for people whom are informed, whom br

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        What you may not realize is that the Christian Science Monitor was founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Mary Baker Eddy is the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Adherents of this religion often refuse modern medical treatments because they believe that disease is not real. The "Christian Science" in the name "Christian Science Monitor" is neither Christian, nor Science.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)


      This is an urban legend that is not true either now (porn made the net boom), or back in the past (porn killed Betamax cause they chose VHS). If you look at the actual video output the porn industry is only ~5% of sales. The dominant force is Hollywood, followed by the school market, then local TV studios, finally business, and porn is a distant last place.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:36AM (#29201551)

      I can just see the scene- The door bell going, the bored housewife answering the door, and some badly dubbed sys admin appears, announces he's here to fix her internet as a dodgy 70's funk soundtrack starts up...

      • I can just see the scene- The door bell going, the bored housewife answering the door, and some badly dubbed sys admin appears, announces he's here to fix her internet as a dodgy 70's funk soundtrack starts up...

        Admin: Excuse me miss, I'm here to fix your PPP WAN connection.
        Housewife: Oh! My.. (blushes). Well, please come in
        (The Admin lurches in, slightly sweaty and breathing through his mouth)
        Housewife: Can I get you anything? Cake or cookies?
        Admin: No, thanks, I'm lactose intolerant. Cookies give me gas. Where's your ethernet router?
        Housewife: (deeper blushes) Oh, my. How about a drink then? Scotch?
        Admin: I'd take a mountain dew. Diet though. I'm watching my weight.
        (He pats an ample belly. The housewife's eyes grow wide.)
        Housewife: I'll.... I'll get you something right away. (She hurries off to the kitchen)
        Admin: (Calling after) Where's the computer?
        Housewife: The computer?! It's, ahhh, in the living room.
        (The Admin waddles to the computer, which is neatly set on a small, immaculately dusted table with pullout keyboard shelf. He rips the table out from the wall, kneels down and begins rummaging amidst the jungle of wires at the back. After some time he pauses, and turns around to see the Housewife standing over him with a glass of soda and a plate of potato chips. She has been there for some time.)
        Admin: Oh thank's! (He's wolfs down the meager glass and munches on a few chips).
        Housewife: You're welcome. Have you found the problem yet?
        Admin: Oh yeah. (He's wipes his greasy fingers on his front of his shirt). I need to adjust your broadband for IPv6.
        Housewife: I...see. And, what might that involve? Will I have to call my husband? He's at work right now.
        Admin: Naww. It shouldn't take a minute. I've got your upgrade right here!
        (He reaches into the fanny pack on the front of his tool belt and rummages around. The Housewife begins to feel faint)
        Admin: Here it is! (He draws a small sleek black router from the pouch)
        Housewife: And what's that for?
        Admin: It's for your line. I just have to rejig everything.
        (He back about and resumes his rummaging. The Housewife slumps back on the sofa and stares silently.)
        Admin: All done. Can you check to see if it's working?
        Housewife: What?
        Admin: On the computer. Check to see if your internet is working. Open your browser and go to
        Housewife: Oh! (See hikes up her dress and sits and the computer desk. As she clicks, she hikes the dress up intermittantly.)
        Admin: Is it working?
        Housewife: Oh! (Her voice is noticeably more sultry) Something went wrong. I seem to have come across some kind of... pornographic website. Could you take a look?
        Admin: It's probably a virus. You should use Ubuntu. I could partition your drives for you if you like.
        (He lumbers up from the floor and leans over towards the desk. As he presses against her and brusquely takes the mouse from her grasp, the Housewife finally succumbs and passes out.)

        (When she awakes, she is lying on the floor with the Admin sitting at the desk.)
        Housewife: What.. what happened?
        Admin: (The admin glances at here, then turns back to the computer screen.) I fixed the problem on the Windows partition and installed Ubuntu Jaunty on a second partition. It should be working fine now. I've set up the dual boot to load up Ubuntu by default, but you can change it by editing the Lilo files.
        Housewife: What about my computer files?
        Admin: Everything's accessible from Nautilus. I've mounted your old drives as WINDOZE_OLD in /media. It should work seamlessly. Anyway, I have to get back to the office.
        (He gathers his tools and makes for the door)
        Housewife: Wait! What about my husband's files from work? What about his emails.

    • by orsty3001 ( 1377575 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:47AM (#29201753)
      If the problems with our current infrastructure was hurting cats, 4chan would fix it.
    • really that's not as bad of an idea as it sounds... though really you could help them help themselves.

      Ideally you'd want to build "Internet 2". Start by getting major bandwidth intensive services onboard like Steam, NetFlix, Xbox Live, maybe some of the larger web entities like Google, eBay, Amazon etc. and market it as a better faster way to get your content similar to the way FIOS is being advertised now.

      The Pr0n industry will jump on board quickly (like they always do) and once that ball is rolling
    • This is ha-ha-only-serious; porn has been a great motivator for pushing technology forward. Porn is the reason VHS won out over Betamax; porn's the reason the internet has gotten into the hands of the hoi-polloi (although AOL does get it's own mention for it's part in The September That Never Ended). It's one of the reasons why I don't worry about DRM -- if anyone were going to make DRM work, it'd be porn producers, who are really motivated to get people to pay for their product. The RIAA/MPAA's losses are
  • by rshol ( 746340 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @09:59AM (#29200953) it s diffuse and decentralized nature, a network of networks, not a single network. An organization or individual with the power to "fix" the internet would have the power to destroy it or lock it down.
    • by gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:05AM (#29201021)

      I suppose IANA could start handing out IPv6 addresses only from now on, that'd shake the industry up quickly enough; and if ICANN announced that they would turn off IPv4 on its DNS roots, it'd have the same effect.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by xaxa ( 988988 )

        I suppose IANA could start handing out IPv6 addresses only from now on, that'd shake the industry up quickly enough...

        They won't have much choice in ~700 days []. It's so close, I don't think there's much point bringing the date forward.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Locklin ( 1074657 )

          Because it won't happen in ~700 days, it will happen in ~700+X days, where X is time bought with stupid last ditch efforts like spewing NAT everywhere and reselling/freeing unused blocks of ipv4 addresses. Any way to avoid spending those X days working with a broken Internet is a positive in my book.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by matang ( 731781 )
      exactly. sure it's frustrating for an implementation of a good idea to take a really long time, but in turn that usually ensures the implementation of a bad idea will be thoroughly vetted and exposed before its adopted (with a few notable exceptions). i'd much rather risk the eternally promised "end of the internet" with the notion that someone would likely provide a fix before it gets to that point than i would risk having some person or company "in charge". we see how far that gets us with basically every
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by moon3 ( 1530265 )
      The Internet is improving everyday as better routers, faster servers, new better cables/antennas are deployed, the last mile connection options are also multiplying. IPv6 is put on hold as there is no real need for it at the moment.
      • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:23AM (#29201359)

        The Internet is improving everyday as better routers, faster servers, new better cables/antennas are deployed, the last mile connection options are also multiplying. IPv6 is put on hold as there is no real need for it at the moment.

        IPv6 is NOT on hold. Most of Asia are already using IPv6. If you use Apple there's a good chance you're using IPv6 without even realising it. The EU is mandating moves to IPv6 in the coming years, and I imagine most countries are doing something similar.

        The US may have its head in the sand, but that doesn't mean everyone else does.

        • Sure, your local machines might be using it, but then what? Do any of the major ISPs use IPv6? What about the *stock* routers/modems/etc. that people have in their homes? I'm pretty sure my local cable co (not Comcast even) isn't assigning me IPv6 address(es), even if my home computers might be able to use it.
          • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @11:10AM (#29202135) Journal
            The grandparent said 'If you use Apple'. What he meant was if you use a recent (last few years) Airport wireless bridge / router from Apple. In this case, it will automatically configure itself using 6to4 when connected to a v4-only upstream network and advertise itself on the local network as a v6 router. As he said, if you have one of these (or some other router that does 6to4) then you may be using v6 automatically. And when your ISP starts assigning v6 subnets then the router will just acquire one and stuff will continue to work automatically without any problems, just with a bit less overhead because you won't be encapsulating v6 packets in IPv4 to push them across a v4-only network segment. Two people using this system, or one using this and the other using a v6 connection from their ISP can exchange v6 traffic.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Most of Asia are already using IPv6.

          Yes, fractions of a percent, just like the US who "has its head in the sand."

        • by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @11:59AM (#29203077)

          The US doesn't have its "head in the sand". The US government and corporations are simply in the position of having large blocks of IPv4 addresses, so there's far less urgency. Of course China is using IPv6 - they came along too late to get many v4 addresses, and v6 already existed when they started building out infrastructure. The US market is relatively mature, as well, so you're not going to see the kind of demand growth you have in other places. We could last for decades on NATs.

        • by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @12:02PM (#29203165)
          The US Federal government is also moving to IPv6 as well. It is now required that their vendors support it.
    • by javilon ( 99157 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:22AM (#29201355) Homepage

      Mod parent up. The only reason the Internet is not augmented TV by now is that nobody had the ability to "fix" it.

      • by JWW ( 79176 )

        I agree completely mod GP way up. The organization with the power to "Fix" the internet will have the power to control it.

        You just have to ask yourself "how much money would the RIAA pay to 'fix' the internet?" to see how bad this could get.

    • An organization or individual with the power to "fix" the internet would have the power to destroy it or lock it down.

      I tend to agree, and dislike the direction the article (summary) seems to be trying to push the underlying facts in. However, there's no reason to think that the internet couldn't be fixed by simply thinking up a compelling, simple, elegant solution.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jeffshoaf ( 611794 ) *

        there's no reason to think that the internet couldn't be fixed by simply thinking up a compelling, simple, elegant solution.

        You're assuming that there is a simple, elegant solution. There may not be one!

      • there's no reason to think that the internet couldn't be fixed by simply thinking up a compelling, simple, elegant solution.

        And there is no reason to think that the current economic crisis can't be fixed by simply thinking up a simple and elegant way of generating free energy.

    • by Aragorn DeLunar ( 311860 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:30AM (#29201467)

      In other words, "An ISP big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

    • it s diffuse and decentralized nature, a network of networks, not a single network. An organization or individual with the power to "fix" the internet would have the power to destroy it or lock it down.

      Kind of like the history of various civilizations and nations. In most every case, they begin their rise to prosperity with a diffuse and decentralized nature. Then the bureaucracy forms that squeezes the life out of it in the name of bettering it.

      Centralized control is to freedom as Marketing is
  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by frankxcid ( 884419 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:05AM (#29201029)
    Another ridiculous article. Supply will always follow demand. WHo will fix the internet? It doesn't matter, it will always be there as long as there is a demand.
  • by segedunum ( 883035 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:08AM (#29201065)
    IPv4 is an absolutely fundamental part of virtually every network in existence today, and given that networks are a fundamental prerequisite in the modern computing world and see very, very, very, very heavy usage every minue of the day no one is going to take any time out and start tinkering because people think networks and the internet are broken. There's no financial incentive for ISPs or any companies to invest in IPv6 yet and there won't be no matter who is 'in charge' of the internet to 'force' it to happen. You can't mandate anything in an open market, and I just find the possible motivation for that statement bizarre.

    Basically, it'll start to happen when we really do run out of IP addresses and things get desperate and it will happen when someone comes up with a sane and straightforward guide for making IPv6 co-exist happily with existing IPv4 networks and making sure everyone knows about it. Until those things happen there is zero incentive to rip out and replace or tinker with something so fundamental. Band aids are the order of the day and have been in every piece of fundamental infrastructure since time imemorial. We must leave this 'rip out and replace' culture in computing far behind otherwise no one can ever take us seriously.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:08AM (#29201073) Journal
    The existing internet certainly has its rough edges, and they are not insignificant; but an alarming number of proposed "internet fixes" and "new improved internet" proposals seem to be more about serving the interests of incumbents(largely in the areas of surveillance and copyright enforcement) than about making the internet work better.

    Many of the internet's virtues are a result of the fact that it grew up before anybody outside of a narrow circle knew that it was going to be significant, so its development was relatively uncrippled. We aren't going to have that opportunity again. Any "new internet" proposal is going to have the grubby claws of "stakeholders" all over it.
  • Proactive...not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stenchwarrior ( 1335051 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:08AM (#29201075)
    There will be no proactive solution; this sort of thing will only be improved upon in increments as things break. John Doyle mentions "Band-Aids" but that's exactly how it needs to any other living organism.
  • Internet-Fixer Man!!! With his large hoard of anonymous, probably overweight, definitely awkward, mostly perverted, could be educated, willing to take risks, bunch of trolls from 4CHAN, he's going to fix the internet in no time flat!
  • by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:10AM (#29201109)
    It seems to me that most of the country is still in a situation where there are one or two options for high speed internet in any given area (only one here). If we allowed more competition, we would probably see a rush to upgrade infrastructure, as most people are damn tired of this "large pipe, limited download" crap, and the first ISP to offer either no cap or really high cap and maintain fast speeds is going to take every last customer from crappy services like AT&T.

    Having some centralized organization handle network upgrades will work out about as well as it did in the 90's, ie not at all. They'll just pocket the money and continue to clamp down on their customers. The only way to improve service is to increase competition.
    • by Courageous ( 228506 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:44AM (#29201695)

      If we allowed more competition,...

      It's not merely an issue of allowing more competition. For example, here in California cable TV is not a state-granted monopoly. And yet, you will find close to zero overlapping cable TV regions. Why? Because it makes little economic sense to the operators to do that. One operator, having paid for infrastructure, can lower prices in its region to below what a new competitor could afford, because the new competitor, having to lay down duplicate infrastructure, will be taking it over the barrel on paying for its new infrastructure. So the new operator just shies off from the whole thing. It's really a kind of willful collusion, but there's nothing evil about it. It's just good, obvious business sense.

      At best, you can hope for the phone company, the cable company, and maybe some new third leg of wireless operators to form some kind of three way competitive market for delivery services. I don't think this is nearly enough, however, for any thing at all resembling competition. Markets with relatively small numbers of participants tend to engage in huge amounts of tacit collusion. Basically, it's very easy for the various players to watch each other's prices, set similar price points, and become lax about the whole thing. The victim is the consumer.

      Real competition occurs in thriving markets where new competitors enter with innovations that lower the fundamental cost basis of their products. This forces competitors to adopt similar innovations or die. This seldom happens in small markets with a static set of competitors, because they're all set in their ways, and know the others are set in their ways. I.e., they can happily never change a thing and GET AWAY WITH IT.

      So basically, don't hold your breath on any kind of real competition occurring here. While I'm a big fan of competitive markets, I'm a big cynic on this market. On a bad day, in a bad mood, I think we should just regulate the entire thing.


    • I want to believe you. But it's just not true.

      For example, the UTOPIA [] network offers much faster speeds than are available from any other providers. They've been around for 5 years, and yet they still haven't really caught on.

      It's unfortunate, but as long as most people are getting the pages and applications they want, when they want them, they'll be happy with not-the-fastest-speed. And most of the time, that's what happens.

      Complacency FTW!

  • by gravyface ( 592485 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:18AM (#29201265)
    I fail to see how/why the TFA is lumping everything under one problem called the "Internet". Break it up into little bits, and you'll see that there *are* mostly effective working groups and vendor coalitions solving issues, up and down the stack, every day.
    • by feepcreature ( 623518 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @11:02AM (#29202031) Homepage

      Some of the "problems with the Internet" are not technical problems so much as social, legal, and financial ones.

      SPAM would be an example - except that today's legal approach has failed catastrophically to address the issue. The US has a weak "you can spam" act, and the UK is worse (Spam can only be stopped, one spammer to spammee "information" flow at a time, starting from the second message any given spammer sends to any given recipient). But the problem is not IP. Nor is the problem, fundamentally, that anonymous virtually-free email is possible (it is a system that has many important benefits - from global accessibility, to anonymity). The problem is unscrupulous users who exploit the internet by sending spam.

      The Network Neutrality debate is driven by under-investing ISPs who want to run an under-resourced cheap network, and split it into many segmented markets, where they can charge each separate segment as much as it will bear without going into bankruptcy. This will fossilise current usage models of the network, and be a huge barrier to innovation.

      Many of today's security "problems of the Internet" are no more Internet problems than mugging or burglary are a problem with streets. The real problem is undetected criminals, and insecure computers and protocols.

      Most of these issues either are being addressed - or can be addressed without "fixing" the Internet.

  • Hands off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blueZ3 ( 744446 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:20AM (#29201299) Homepage

    The problem correlates to what makes the Internet so successful: it's a wide-open, essentially unregulated space.

    With no centralized authority, you get benefits like anonymity (see how long that lasts once the bureaucrats get their hooks in it--oh noes! the terrorists! think of the children! we must track each user), innovation (in just a few years we've gone from hypertext to graphical MMORPGs--I can just see trying to get the paperwork through on that one) and freedom (I don't suppose the good people at 760 United Nations Plaza would be interested in protecting the freedom of expression of fascists, for instance).

    Of course, with anonymity comes spam, with innovation you get new and better malware, and with freedom you get a lot of crazy talk. But unless you're ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, it's probably best to leave well enough alone. Since politicians of all stripes are essentially unable to understand opportunity costs or unintended consequences, I shudder each time I read one of these FUD-o-thons.

  • by MSTCrow5429 ( 642744 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:27AM (#29201417)
    If there was someone "in charge" of the internet, we wouldn't be worried about being unable to change technical standards by proclaimed fiat, but instead about why we were using both ancient and nearing unworkable technical standards, and why we were unable to even apply band-aids to the problem, lest the ship be rocked, incompatibilities result, special interests slighted, and the status quo in danger of coming out of stasis.
  • The basic internet is fine, IPv4 and IPv6 both transmit datagrams, and that is all you need; WHAT we DO NOT need is big government or CORPORATE AMERICA __improving things__.
  • especially since there's no financial incentive on the part of the ISPs and telecoms to invest in basic infrastructure.

    Who does he think has been paying for most of the network upgrades? The government? The martians? Does he think that God has sent down an army of angels to quietly build up our infrastructure?

  • Time to bring Al Gore out of retirement so that he can reinvent the Internet.
  • There is a lot that could be implied by saying "Fix the internet," but all that's really needed is a full duplex asynchronous protocol that's light weight and secure. We're at a point now where browsers are adhering better to standards and compiling javascript on the fly to machine code, yet we're still piggy-backing on http.

    Aside from that, the summary doesn't make a lot of sense. What does IPv4 have to do with the internet being broken? We're just running out of IP addresses but even now it's not an
  • TFA says that the internet was just an experimental demo that worked too well and ended up getting adopted. Wrong. It started as an experimental but real network that was to be used for real work. The basic principles were deliberately, and well, chosen.

    The environment has changed, but the basic principle of a simple network with intelligence at the "edges" - in the devices that connect to the basic bit-shuffling network - is sound. That above all is what has allowed so many innovative services to be rapidl

  • In my opinion is the lack of actual technical professionals. We have too many people who know how to fix product A, because they were trained to fix product A and that is what they do. So when product A becomes un-fixable it gets replaced with another product A.

    We will see the massive changes in tech when the CS and IT folks who entered the market in the 2000s make it to management and start controlling the tech. These are individuals that have grown up with change and are adaptable to it. A large numbe

  • The internet has very many technical shortcoming and many businesses make their living off of compensating for them. It turns out that the trade-off between fixing the technical problems and paying someone to compensate for them falls in favor of paying someone. What's the problem here? The only reason to make the technical changes is when the costs are too high (which apparently hasn't happened yet) or physical limits are reached (e.g. running out of IP v.4 addresses). I don't see a problem with this..

  • To the extent I've been working in this field for the last 10 years, I've been mostly working on band-aids

    "I am stuck on Band-aids, 'cause band-aids stuck on me,
    I am stuck on Band-aids, 'cause band-aids stuck on me,
    updating specs is a PITA now,
    with dysfunctional ISPs,
    We're all stuck on Band-aids now, 'cause of our sucky ISP!" "

    ... because if we don't laugh, we'll cry ...

    IPV6? Do you really want to give each toaster an individual ip addresses? You know toasters have a plan! []

  • ... the eyeballs are on the internet advertisers are itching to get at eyes that are no longer on television.

    Let's not also forget gaming, tv and porn is on the internet. Also a significant amount of ecommerce happens online (, ebay, etc, etc).

    Quite frankly this is like crying wolf when there are no wolves around.

  • Did somebody accidentally the internet again?

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @12:37PM (#29203737) Homepage

    Most of the proposed "upgrades" are worse. There was a "Clean Slate Program" [] at Stanford, but the general idea was to put the network firmly under the thumb of the carriers, turning the Internet into something like mobile telephony. That didn't fly.

    IPv6 and IPSEC would fix most of the problems down at the IP level. It might be useful if the FCC mandated that US ISPs must support IPv6 to consumers by some date. More likely, China may mandate IPv6; they need the address space. The 2008 Olympics was mostly run on IPv6, so the technology is working there.

  • Exhaustion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fulldecent ( 598482 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @01:53PM (#29204859) Homepage

    IPV4 addresses will be exhausted at a time according to the following formula:

    Wiggabu + 18 months

    where Wiggabu represents the time you are currently reading this equation.

The absent ones are always at fault.