Verizon Refuses To Provide Complete IPv6 438
Glendale2x writes "I'm a progressive sort of guy and I want to go full dual-stack, IPv6 for the future, etc. However I recently tried to turn up a new Verizon circuit with IPv6 (after a 6-month fiber install process), and to my chagrin the order they accepted back in May they're now saying is against their policy to provide. They're missing around 29% of the IPv6 internet and refuse to carry it. Tell me again how we're supposed to encourage IPv6 adoption in the face of a huge black hole like this?"
bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd damn well better give you a full refund if that v6 was an essential part of the contract.
If verizon's pulling this shit AND trying to keep your money they need their asses spanked in court, big time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave. Verizon is probably happy enough to let a squeaky wheel out of any time contract, if they really are in violation, knowing that the unwashed masses will not notice these kinds of failings.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave. Verizon is probably happy enough to let a squeaky wheel out of any time contract, if they really are in violation, knowing that the unwashed masses will not notice these kinds of failings.
The problem is if the six month install process came with a hefty price tag (article is Slashdotted, so can't read up on it). Voting with your feet and going elsewhere implies a massive sunk cost that may not be recoverable, depending on how open the fiber accessibility is to other providers.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Coral cache: http://www.rollernet.us.nyud.net:8090/wordpress/2009/10/verizon-refuses-to-provide-complete-ipv6/ [nyud.net]
If you use the "slashdotter" Firefox extension, it will automatically insert coralcache, mirrordot, and google cache links into the summary for you.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave.
I'm sick of this excuse. Voting with your dollar works when your dollar is the only dollar. When millions of other people have dollars and a good chunk of them are ignorant, your dollar won't be missed. I took my dollar away from Verizon years ago, and there's a good chance that many others did the same thing.
There are three methods to dealing with businesses: you can let them do whatever they want to you, you can quietly go elsewhere, or you can speak up loudly and take them to court. The first method makes the business happy, the second makes you feel good about yourself but does very little, and the third lets everyone hear what evils the company did and how they handle it, thus making more people make decisions of their own. Seeing as how all of the duopolies and monopolies and x-opolies are still thriving despite the silent treatment, I would think a more aggressive approach is the only way to fight back.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sick of this excuse. Voting with your dollar works when your dollar is the only dollar.
It's not an excuse, it's a realization of the grim truth. Reread my post, we agree that it won't change Verizon's actions. It *will* free you individually from the failings of Verizon. That's about as good as it gets these days.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It won't free you from the failings of Verizon if you happen to be on one of the networks they omit from their routing table.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing you do will guarantee that *every* corporation in the world will do *everything* to your satisfaction, including suing Verizon.
But if you control a company that can afford the financial resources and distraction from your business to go head to head in an extended legal battle with Verizon, then get to it and report back! I'm genuinely interested to hear the results.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Too bad you can't file for a restraining order against a corporation to get you out of your contract when they buy out whoever you are with
Scramble his eggs... (Score:3, Funny)
Visiting in person and spitting the dummy can be deeply satisfying...
I came back to a busy mobile phone store for the fourth time regarding enabling a AU-$30 sim chip, I had also had several lengthy conversations with the phone company over that time. I went through the story (again) with a disinterested "manager" who said it was the phone companies fault, however I used to work for the telco so at this point I knew he was makin
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had a similar experience when canceling service with a web hosting provider (lowestcosthost.com). They started out OK. and I finally decided to prepay for a year to get a slight discount. A few weeks later, their service rapidly became abysmal, to the point where email would go down for hours, then instead of dealing with the issue they'd just reboot the email server and clear the email buffers on the way back up (losing any email that was in queue). This happened three times in the same month, and I f
You advocate dictatorship (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sick of this excuse. Voting with your dollar works when your dollar is the only dollar.
Let's see. You pick up your marbles from the big bad company, and nobody else leaves with you. So... your answer is to try and impose your will on everyone else. Maybe all those other people simply didn't care about the same issue as you. Like, maybe your opinion doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would think a more aggressive approach is the only way to fight back.
Not me. I'm taking the more passive approach. I'm currently stockpiling static ip addresses. I've got three so far. If all the people of Dubai are surviving on one static ip address alone, I figure I should be able to easily survive on three.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that if you're a prisoner of a monopoly you should WHINE as loudly as you possibly can. Rather than, say, starting a competitor.. or just accepting that nothing you do in life matters.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
You try starting at the bottom and see how well you do. In fact, it is basically impossible to start any significantly-sized business from the bottom any more, at least in any competitive market, because the entrenched players have already purchased legislation (and are already working on buying more) to prevent new players from entering the market. Technical superiority is not enough, and really never has been. In order to grow a business large, you must be "in bed" with those who make decisions. Look at the last Tier 1 phone/net provider to be spun up: Qwest. The only way they were able to get enough right of way to lay enough fiber to become relevant was that their CEO left Southern Pacific Railroads after brokering a deal there that would get him that right of way from SP. (Or was it UP? I forget. The point still stands.) Qwest therefore never had to start from the bottom: they began from a position of power, and were backed by a fairly awesome amount of capital. For YOU to get to the same point, even if you had more business savvy than trump and more technical ability than everyone who wrote Unix and designed the internet combined, you would have to be likewise connected. That is very much the opposite of "Starting at the bottom".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll gladly start a competitor if you'll provide me with the funding. Personally, I don't qualify for the multimillion dollar loan I'd need to be able to build (or rent) the infrastructure necessary to compete with Comcast or Verizon in just one city, but maybe you do?
That said, yes, complaining about things can certainly make things better. Did AT&T charge you an activation fee or upgrade fee for you last cell phone? Complain - they'll waive it if you try. (Worked for me.) Think Comcast is chargin
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Honest business has no room in mass markets. Simple reason: People want cheap goods and services and don't care about quality, simply because they don't know just what quality they may expect.
Since there are rarely "secret" ways to save money in business, the only way to offer cheaper products is to let quality slide. Usually in areas where only few of your customers will notice it. In this case, this means that v6 service will be limited if existing. Why? Because 99% of their customers won't notice it since they don't even know whether IPv6 is some protocol or some new program to download more porn.
Now, you COULD of course open your own ISP and offer better service. Less oversold bandwidth. A newsserver that carries more than your own ad-filled newsgroups. Unshaped traffic that can't only be used sensibly for http traffic (where it doesn't matter whether every other connection dies within 5 minutes, making ssh connections a PITA). You would have to charge more, though, simply because your cost will be higher. How many people are going to pay for it? Again, 99% of the users that could sign up with you won't know or care about what you offer, or at least not enough to pay the higher fee. Of that last percent, how many will even know that your service is really better?
Saying "make it better" is usually not going to cut it. Market won't allow it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you vote with your dollars if they've been swallowed by the company that already cheated you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave. Verizon is probably happy enough to let a squeaky wheel out of any time contract, if they really are in violation, knowing that the unwashed masses will not notice these kinds of failings.
Maybe, but the fact is they had a contract and they broke it. The best thing for someone to do is to sue them, which has the additional benefit of changing their long-term policy and drawing attention to their failings.Lawsuits aren't hard and you can find lawyers to take these kinds of cases for free.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
But yeah, definitely take any and all legal recourse.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly.
In particular because a lot of the money that they use to put up the lines (for their business) comes from public tax dollars. And also because they have a near monopoly in many areas. The courts have already decided that cable companies don't have to share their lines (I assume that this translates to Verizon too if they're not exactly specified by the ruling) so they have a public obligation to provide full services if it's on the public's tab.
It's okay that we live in a country where our governme
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's time for the public to use eminent domain to seize the cables.
Eminent domain is the gov'ts ability to force a private party to sell something at fair market cost. So, what you're suggesting is that the gov't give verizon MORE money for their network.
The power you're looking for is "anti-trust" or, if you prefer, "nationalization."
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
>>They'd damn well better give you a full refund if that v6 was an essential part of the contract.
From my Terms of Service with Verizon, defining a 'bit': "A unit of information that respresent a single character."
Sigh... both a Tech and Grammar Fail.
I wonder if I can sue them for breach of service if they can't come up with a coding scheme that can pack ASCII into a single bit.
Verizon are just protecting you (Score:5, Funny)
From the EVIL 29% of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Does IPv6 have the Evil Bit?
Order Accepted? (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe AT&T is better(?) (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe AT&T is better; I just came off a two year contract at Verizon, supporting provisioning tools for your very product. For years the big push at Verizon has been to off-shore. I'm not sure they really understand Data they way they run "worldcom/MCI".
If it was my money, I would try AT&T, they are way bigger (I hear) than Verizon in the Data arena.
slashdotted wordpress install... any details ? (Score:2)
so are you saying that the ISP is filtering the packets ?
can you tell what equipment they are using ?
personally I wish ISP's would just send out routers that where IPv6 compliant (are you listening British Telecom...)
regards
John Jones
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is on an OC-12. They're filtering using BGP prefix lists.
I concur... (Score:2)
ipv6 access to rollernet.us seems to be down.
Either that, or your site's been slashdotted...
Re:I concur... (Score:4, Informative)
Server's overloaded. I didn't expect me complaining about Verizon would hit the front page. Trying to convert it to a static page.
29% (Score:3, Funny)
They're missing around 29% of the IPv6 internet and refuse to carry it.
That's because 28% of it is 4chan and the other 1% is unaccounted-for dark matter.
Obvious answer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me again how we're supposed to encourage IPv6 adoption in the face of a huge black hole like this?
Well call me Captain Obvious, but I'd say don't subscribe to Verizon. If enough people want it, eventually either Verizon will offer it or they'll go out of business. Either way it's a win for consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That sounds great on paper. But in the real world you often don't have a choice between providers. Even if there isn't an official monopoly the carriers hate laying redundant cabling and won't service an area covered by someone else and would rather invest in areas where they don't have to compete for customers.
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
By public addresses.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I assume he refers to the ability to realistically have more than one public address in your house, whether it be static or dynamic in nature. I personally have one public IPv4 address and maybe half a dozen devices to share it.
And to extend on his point, I will bet in the next year or so ISPs will start issuing addresses to residences that are in a private subnet range and charge people extra for not being behind a NAT gateway (if they haven't already).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? It's amazing how many people seem to have been against the recent war, yet the government waged it anyway...
It would have ended in 2005 if Bush hadn't been re-elected. Obviously, changing the behavior of the government by voting only works when you win.
how do you think they manage to "have the network" (Score:2)
Verizon has been notorious for seriously resticting its network usage on both the wired and wireless sides. When your able to shape things to minimal usage, its easier to have 5/9 service and minimize congestion.
BGP aggregation policy (Score:4, Insightful)
I know I'm only seeing a small piece of the diagnostics here, but it's my understanding that they are correct that Verizon's end-user network should act as a stub as far as end-user traffic is concerned. If the problem is that they won't route traffic from your address (inside Verizon's /32) to another direct-allocation network that is in fact a legitimate BGP peer for IPv6 services, I'd complain to ARIN directly that their traffic is being dropped.
Re:BGP aggregation policy (Score:5, Interesting)
If the problem is that they won't route traffic from your address (inside Verizon's /32) to another direct-allocation network that is in fact a legitimate BGP peer for IPv6 services, I'd complain to ARIN directly that their traffic is being dropped.
Yes, this is the problem. Unfortunately then you'll hit the "well, just because ARIN says so doesn't mean we have to route it" excuse, which is what I'm waiting for them to come back with on Monday.
Re:BGP aggregation policy (Score:4, Informative)
So the first question I'd want answered would be: which backbone provider do those blocks belong to?
A whole lot of different ones. They're ARIN's PI multihoming block.
I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding that IPv6 addresses, unlike IPv4 addresses, include information about the backbone provider, so you really can't get your own allocation from ARIN and expect an ISP to route it for you. It doesn't (or isn't supposed to) work like that, for good reason. So, if the missing blocks are people who aren't backbone providers but have some kind of back-door deal with Sprint and/or Hurricane Electric, Verizon may be in the right.
You wouldn't have been mistaken before 2006. ARIN does allow you to get your own IPv6:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html [arin.net]
I believe RIPE is following suit next month.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fascinating. Is there a corresponding document somewhere explaining how this is supposed to be implemented? It seems to defeat one of the design criteria of IPv6, i.e., keeping routing tables simple.
Regardless, I still think it would be a good start to identify one or more ISPs that are serving some of those blocks and talk to them about it.
Re:BGP aggregation policy (Score:4, Informative)
Fascinating. Is there a corresponding document somewhere explaining how this is supposed to be implemented? It seems to defeat one of the design criteria of IPv6, i.e., keeping routing tables simple.
You are correct that it does defeat the routing table simplicity goal because implementation of multihoming is exactly the same as it is with IPv4. This happened because IPv6 was left without a sane way to multihome. I don't know what block RIPE will use, but AFRINIC (2001:43F8::/29), and APNIC (2001:0DF0::/29) also have a similar policy to ARIN.
ipv6 is good for voip (Score:4, Interesting)
change of contract (Score:4, Interesting)
It's hard to tell from the summary, but did you sign a contract with them back in May that included IPv6 support? If yes, and they spent six months building out the line only to tell you in the end, "oh, sorry, we don't want to do IPv6 anymore" then you can get them in court for material change of contract. If there was no contract (hard to believe if there was a 6-month build-out), or if it never specified IPv6 anywhere, then you're hosed and pretty much get what you deserve for taking Verizon's word at face value. :)
Re:change of contract (Score:5, Informative)
They very conveniently lost the original order (where I disclosed exactly what I required, down to what networks I will announce) and the circuit was delivered as IPv4-only in August. With a static /29. Without BGP. All of this was a huge shock to the provisioning team on the first call when I started talking BGP for IPv4. It took over a month to get them to change it to dual-stack and re-engineer the endpoint to go to a different city that had IPv6 support after I forwarded them all of my copies. And then they pulled this out of their hat. Oh, don't forget that my account manager was fired in September and the new one won't accept my calls. It's a huge fucked up mess.
I must admit, I never figured that complaining about Verizon sucking would make the front page of slashdot.
IPv6 adoption screwed by a few major factors (Score:5, Insightful)
First and perhaps foremost, a lot of the industry has formulated a non-trivial amount of their business plan around the artificial scarcity of IPv4. It is recommended that even residences get /48 prefixes, though some have asked that to be reduced to /56, giving every person up to 255 subnets to route, each subnet being able to host 18 quintillion hosts in a globally unique fashion. Giving a singe IP address just won't cut it since no one has bothered to do NATing on IPv6.
Secondly, no sanctioned way exists for an IPv6 only 'client' to communicate with an IPv4 'server'. I know that the engineers of IPv6 have a pure vision of a peer to peer internet where NAT is evil, but they needed to embrace it to get a very bad problem addressed. If it were baked in, then ISPs would suddenly have an incentive to migrate. As it stands, IPv6 represents only a financial burden, since it requires investment *and* they can't cut off IPv4 due to lack of interoperability. With this, suddenly, the still valuable IPv4 space wouldn't need to be given out to end customers, and IPv6 could carry them through.
One alternative would be for ISPs to start giving out private IPv4 addresses and doing the NATing for IPv4 that way, then assigning IPv6 networks for usage more in the spirit of symmetric peers. However, ISPs aren't particularly incentivized to go beyond the first step of taking away globaly IPv4 addresses. This comes to a third reason, we can still game the system with ISP level NAT a lot more since a vast majority of IP addresses in use are used by people who wouldn't even know they were behind an external NAT gateway if it happened to them one day. Most every modern internet usage is designed to tolerate NATs. Torrent and friends are more impacted than others, but most people still use http for 99% of their internet experience, and do not serve at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe with the right type of gateway they could.
Imagine you reserve a /16 of "private address space" for name mapping.
You have a gateway that provides DNS.
When someone looks up "www.blah.com" and it has an IPv6 address, the DNS server immediately allocates an ephemeral IPv4 address, enters it into a temporary database, and returns it to the client.
Now when the client requests to open a TCP connection to the ephemeral IP address within the TTL period, the gateway will automatically receive t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except, at this point, there are no legacy hosts to any degree. 99.9% of the computers out there either can already do IPv6, or do it with a minor upgrade. Legacy hosts are not the problem.
The problem is the fact that IPv6 was built in an incredibly fucking stupid way.
It should have been set up as a transparent change, where every person who had an IPv4 address magically had an IPv6 address that worked, and whenever an IPv6 stack, be it either your computer or some router halfway down the road, determined
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It should have been set up as a transparent change, where every person who had an IPv4 address magically had an IPv6 address that worked, and whenever an IPv6 stack, be it either your computer or some router halfway down the road, determined it was talking to IPv4, converted it into IPv4.
This is actually the way that IPv4-mapped addresses (::ffff:0:0/96) were originally envisioned, and it's the way that Linux and [^Open]BSD handle it internally. You'll notice a conspicuous absence in that list of OSs, though.
I've used dual-stack IPv6 with IPv4 NAT for 2 yrs! (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'd like a pony (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm afraid that while IPv6 has many features, the upstream roll-out is hindered by necessary hardware and configuration upgrades, and interoperability with IPv4 for at least another decade. And frankly, with the effective use of NAT and staggered layers of NAT around the world, the overwhelming need of IPv6 has also evaporated for another decade.
Can you show me a single feature of IPv6 that Verizon's customers actually need? One that isn't also manageable with NAT and reasonably intelligent load balancers?
Your trying to contact IPv6 PI! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I know it is a bummer but ARIN should not have issued PI addresses.
Don't forget that RIPE allows PI /48's too, so we aren't talking about just the ARIN region.
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:5, Insightful)
IPv4 Exhaustion is expected approximately 734 days from today's date. That is just about 2 years.
It takes a lot longer than 2 years to develop a networking standard, and gain acceptance from the community, and no alternative has even been proposed.
There are two solutions on the table: IPv6 and IPv4 with carrier grade NAT.
It's going to be one of those things, in two years.
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:4, Insightful)
"Carrier-grade NAT" is not a solution, it's an oxymoron, and one that has already been rejected by the real world.
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:4, Informative)
Except China. The latest figure I've heard is six levels of NAT in some places.
You aren't seeing the whole picture (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks to China's Carrier-grade NAT you aren't seeing levels seven through 1,345,751,000. In China OLPC means One Level of network address translation Per Citizen.
Re:You aren't seeing the whole picture (Score:5, Funny)
That would be OLTPC or OLNATPC
Actually, n/m, come to think of it.. many to one translations are commonly called PAT, NAPT, PNAT, or "Overload NAT".
Oh, and though it may be a matter of debate, some folks swear that it's incorrect to call those NAT.
So OLPPC (One layer of PAT per citizen) or OLNPPC (One layer of Network and Port Address translation per citizen), OLNAPTPC, or respectively OLNAPTC OLPNATPC, or OLNPC
But not OLPC...
Oh, what were we talking about again?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and though it may be a matter of debate, some folks swear that it's incorrect to call those NAT.
Well the RFCs on the subject clearly use the term "basic NAT" for a device that just changes IPs, "NAPT" for a device that changes both IPs and ports and "NAT" as a catchall term convering both.
"PAT" appears to be a ciscoism
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if the hierarchy really is that deep it would sure make filtering out bad sites damned easy. Since only the top level routers can see outside, only one door to lock.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has been rejected by the customers. That means essentially jack.
ISPs will implement it and offer their customers the choice of a NATed solution or real IP for premium price. Expect to pay more for your IP address in the future, they can charge for it, so they will. You don't like it, try finding an ISP that offers you one for free. You won't find one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's being implemented by 2 tier 1 carriers in the US that I know of. Though it's not really going to be geared towards computers. It's all more or less smartphones and other non PC end devices.
Some ISP's will just do the IPV4-6 conversion in your modem and everything at the home will be IPV4. I'm sure for 99% of the people out there it will be fine. The rest of us are going to be pulling their hair out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Right, and they have been saying two years for about 12 years now. Just like how we've been 10 years away from running out of oil for close to 40 years, and about 10 years away from commercialized fusion for about the same amount of time.
Re: (Score:2)
IPv4 is a measurable finite resource. There are 2^32 of them. You can plot it on a graph fairly accurately.
Yes, but watch for... (Score:4, Interesting)
-Aggressive purchase/selloff of unused IP space (there are companies with class As that come no where near 16.7 million systems).
-ISPs dropping granting an IP to residential customers and phones on the base plans, using NAT upstream
In other words, the world is so IPv6 averse that the IP exhaustion will not really happen in the medium-term future. While it is sad, the fact that 95% of the internet does not care or know about having a globally unique IP address will keep NAT a viable solution for a while. I.e. just as some people pay extra for a single static IP address, in the next few years, expect to have to pay a premium for a single real IP for others to reach you at.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
v4 addresses will stop getting scarcer when they're in high enough demand to make it profitable for early assignees to let some of their hoarded addresses go for sale.
IANA let too many organizations grab a shitload more addresses than they needed, and now they're sitting on gold mines and aren't letting go. We already have cases of companies flatly refusing to give back their v4's. Considering the address scarcities and the potential for profiteering, who can blame them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patently untrue. The costs of vacating spaces is enormous. Nobody is sitting on ip's they're going to give up. To give up any portion of a /8 implies that you actually segmented your network from day one and are able to shave off those pieces. In most cases were talking about 20+ years of network growth and re-engineering. I'm sure enormous chunks are tied up and to clean that out will just never be worth the trouble.
IANA is requiring company officers to attest to the need of the remaining IP space pers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
95% of the internet does not care or know about having a globally unique IP address will keep NAT a viable solution for a while.
It used to be that I didn't care about that.
Then my brother got himself banned from Slashdot by IP (while we were both teenagers).
At that point, I started caring whether I shared an IP with someone I didn't trust, who was likely to get banned from somewhere. (The first, most obvious change was to convince my brother to stop trolling.)
It may take awhile, but if people start finding themselves banned from, say, YouTube or Facebook by IP, they'll start caring about NAT.
There's a reason people move away from AO
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mac address doesn't get sent tot he remote host unless you're on the same ethernet network. MAC address is an ethernet concept, not part of IP.
Besides which, it's trivially changable. Most routers allow you to set it to whatever you want.
It's either IPv6 or carrier-grade NAT or ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
IPv4 is a measurable finite resource. There are 2^32 of them. You can plot it on a graph fairly accurately.
Predicting the end of IPv4 addresses is like predicting the end of any other measurable, finite resource:
As we get near the end, if there is demand there will be rationing or an increase in price to drive demand down. Either way, the supply will last longer than a naive prediction would indicate.
IPv4 NAT has already reduced the rate of exhaustion beyond what it would be without it, albeit at the price of reduced inter-connectivity.
If IPv6 isn't rolled out nearly globally soon, I think you'll see a lot more carriers handing out NAT'd addresses for new customers unless those customers are willing to pay extra for a world-visible address. Within a year after that they'll jack up the prices on existing customers who don't "downgrade" to the cheaper NAT'd plan. This will buy more time, but, again, at the cost of decreased connectivity.
Of course, I could be wrong, there could be something new and easier to implement coming down the pike, in which case all bets are off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a bit like suggesting you can sell parts of your land (real-estate) under the table, without notifying the county records office of the sale..
The problem is... there's a registered owner (or deed holder). And having someone tell you that you can use some IP addresses is useless unless you can get traffic to them.
The action required to get traffic to go to an IP address is very public, you have to announce the IP address space using an AS number.
The only way for you to do it without setting off
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no requirement for handling the entire IPv4 routing table on edge devices. If you're a small network using BGP you ignore the internet and just advertise default routes OUT of your network. If you're a big network, MPLS + BGP free core is the way to go. In general vacating traffic to the nearest edge connection (when cost is not a factor) is the best policy.
Where cost comes into play there are numerous ways around carrying the routing tables again. The only reason you would carry full tables is
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:5, Insightful)
IPv4 dates back to 1981. At the time, I'm sure handing out Class A's did not seem such a bad idea. Noone at the time expected IPv4 to be the be all end all of network addressing, they expected it to be used for awhile and then replaced by something else. Back in 1980, did you think there would be a personal computer (or several) on every desk and in every home, all connected to a global internet tying every on of them together? This is a good 10 years before most people ever heard of the "Information superhighway". The people participating and building the network, getting it off the ground, got large chunks of addresses to use as they saw fit. That sounds fair to me. Is it fair for people to wait until others made a massive investment in the network, and after it becomes wildly successful, to then demand they byproduct of their investment?
Noone could have expected IPv4 would achieve the status it has today, noone predicted address scarcity being a problem before a better protocol could be designed and implemented. Presumably the designers, being intelligent, reasonable men, expected other intelligent, reasonable men to follow them, capable of implementing upgrades to add new address space as the demand required and the technology was available. Unfortunately the internet devolved into being led by squabbling, political maneuvering, corrupt fuckheads. I don't think it's fair to blame the original designers for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Let us know when the exact number of available IPv4 addresses is in dispute. A comparison to oil in this context is absurd.
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:5, Informative)
[citation needed]
In 2003, RIPE NCC [ripe.net] noted that estimates fell around 2012. I will grant you that 2003 is not 12 years ago, only 6, but that was a result on the first page of google for "IPv4 run-out estimates over time."
I'm unfamiliar with oil reserves and cold fusion research, but I'd like to see your justifications for those claims, too :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure about him but I was told 2050 for oil reserves 15 years ago. Not ten years. Cold fusion research is random about every 10 years a major break through happens with a media saying that we will have it in another 10 years.
Of course listening to the media is like listening to fox news. you don't get anything useful if your an open minded intelligent person. the rhetoric and misdirection is just too much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it won't. It will be some bandaid solution thought of at the last minute that will patch things together until the current crop of CEOs get their golden parachutes.
Sorry, but I'm very cynical on this. Few businesses are "forward looking"; most look back to the heyday when life was good and want nothing to do with any new invention if they can help it. Look at the entertainment industry, the paper press industry, the telecom industry... They've all been fighting new tech for years.
Heck, if it was up to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know, that "sky is falling" prediction has been coming and going for years now. It's always just a couple years away. Things get reallocated, and then it's "oh a couple years away". Someone always "discovers" IPv6, because they were just taught about it and suddenly it's the most important thing to them since storing rations for Y2K.
Sept 1998 ... IPv4's 4.2 bil
In many ways, the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 marks the period of the Internet's adolescence. Within the user community, there's angst over
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:4, Insightful)
The boy who cried wolf might have turned out differently if the boy were able to predict the approximate future date at which the wolf would come, and periodically reminded people that the date was getting closer.
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 is a very mature solution. The reason you've been hearing about the IPv4 space running out for years is because it's been prepared for, for about that long of a time. Estimates as to when it'll run out haven't drastically changed, although we are now much closer to the point than we were five years ago :-)
Plus I have an IPv6 connection and home and I'm loving it!
Lack of support by vendors (Score:2)
How many vendors right now are still deploying products that don't have ipv6? how many of these companies who could provide firmware updates won't so that they can simply force hardware upgrades on users? ipv6 can be easily switched in 6months if the networking hardware companies were willing to provide free firmware updates for hardware up to 2 years old. If they did that we'd be talking about ipv6 coming in 6months instead of the current situation of non-existance.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the ISPs and core infrastructure support IPv6, it doesn't really matter if the crappy end-user routers do. Users who don't care about end-to-end will stay behind their carrier-grade NAT. Users who figure out that IPv6 will make their torrents go faster will go buy the IPv6-capable hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Comcast will find it very interesting to know that their impending deployment of IPv6 to millions of devices will have all been a bad dream.
If you don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes with IPv6, I suggest you stop talking. You just make yourself look silly.
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the Telcos are finished punishing us for de-regulation yet. They want us to cry for Ma Bell, and then when the rates go through the roof, we might be forgiven.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's gonna be HUGE in Asia (for a time) while being ignored by the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
another VCD (Video CD)
You mean it will be widely deployed in Asia, be very cheap, better compression and without DRM?
Sounds good.
Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with IPv6 exactly?
I've been running dual stack on test servers just because and it seems to work fine. I've tested Windows Server 2008 and Vista clients with IPv6 and it works fine. I even get IPv6 connections to some internet servers like Mozilla.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert, but I'm looking forward to the end of NAT on every router.
Re:Google Cache link (Score:4, Funny)
Fail. Looks like Slashdot doesn't provide complete IPv6 either.
Re:Google Cache link (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot is a proper American site and refuses to surrender to new-fangled hippie bullshit like Unicode and IPv6. If ASCII and IPv4 was good enough for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, it is good enough for us!
The abundant usage of Javascript and AJAX may suggest differently, but after any amount of actually using the site, you'll see it's really a undercover op to make people long for the simple functionality of the pre-Web-2.0 days.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Relying on the sun is a pretty long term solution. If we're still using the sun for energy when the sun is about to expand and burn the planet, we have bigger problems than just energy...
Re:Actually, Verizon is right (Score:4)
IPv6 was designed to solve not just one problem, but two. Not just address exhaustion, but also routing table explosion.
But it created a problem: no multihoming. I'm not just a Verizon customer: I'm a Sprint customer, I'm a SAVVIS customer. How would it be efficient to only be able to route via Verizon (especially if it were down)?
Re:Actually, Verizon is right (Score:4, Informative)
The least bad solution with the current standards is to give to each IPv6 multiple addresses, e.g. one with the Verizon prefix, one with the Sprint prefix, one with SAVVIS. Of course, that solution assumes that the exit routers are capable of choosing the exit route based on the source address picked by the host, which is a *big* assumption. I suppose that if there is enough demand, Cisco, Juniper et al will come up with such routers.
If that works, you get the equivalent of each host having multiple "virtual network cards", one for each provider. Of course, they do not in fact have multiple cards, just multiple addresses.
Failing that, the big organizations will pay their providers large sums and get a short prefix (/32, probably) that will be routed. The small folks will be left hanging.
Re:Summary is misleading. (Score:4, Interesting)
For those interested:
Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd
2600:80A:60F::1 4 701 18685 7401 44868 0 0 1d09h 1516
2620:0:950::242:130
4 11170 28462 14090 44869 0 0 1d00h 2140
Verizon carries 1516 routes, the combination of Sprint and HE are 2140 routes.