What Happens When IPv4 Address Space Is Gone 520
darthcamaro writes 'We all know that IPv4 address space is almost all gone — but how will we know when the exact date is? And what will happen that day? In a new report, ARIN's CIO explains exactly what will happen on that last day of IPv4 address availability: '"We will run out of IPv4 address space and the real difficult part is that there is no flag date. It's a real moving date based on demand and the amount of address space we can reclaim from organizations," Jimmerson told InternetNews.com. "If things continue they way they have, ARIN will for the very first time, sometime between the middle and end of next year, receive a request for IPv4 address space that is justified and meets the policy. However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time."'
The Internet is Full (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Funny)
Just put the internet behind a NAT. Simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not necessary, IPv6 already has the IPv4 address space blocked off and reserved for IPv4 addresses, so all you need is protocol translation for the systems that can't understand IPv6. It's not a hard problem. Yeah it will cost a little money, but really it's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else a business needs to deal with.
You band-aid it until you can justify the necessary overhaul. Eventually everyone will be on IPv6.
In other words, the reason nobody is rushing to fix it is because it's not that big of a deal. The problem is small enough that you won't really need to worry about it until it actually comes up.
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Funny)
Do you have an answer on how being cut off from large swaths of the internet is a good thing
depends, is Facebook on this part of the Internet you're referring to?
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"We all know that IPv4 address space is almost all gone — but how will we know when the exact date is? and what will happen that day?
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody clogged the tubes.
See, IPv4 is like a 1/2" tube, and IPv6 is like a 3/4" tube. IPv4 is smaller with a higher pressure, and so works faster, but moves less internet overall. IPv6 is better if you have a higher pressure internet, as it can move a greater volume but only if you support it. Lots of people are trying to squeeze their devices onto the intertubes, so the pressure of all of those electrons is really high. This clogs IPv4, freezes the electrons, and causes the web to burst.
So support IP
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone knows the more modern type of tube uses photons, not electrons, since photons don't follow the pauli exclusion principle you can fit a bunch more of them in the tube at once, that's why fiber is faster than coax.
Yes but they do tend to heat up the tube because energy dispersion scales with the density of photons.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Funny)
OK, but i want it cleaned first, your IP address has been to every porn site on the internet.
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:4, Informative)
Oh great, artificial scarcity caused by greedy bastards refusing to upgrade because they're either too cheap to upgrade or looking to make a buck selling unused addresses...
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's artificial scarcity because the demand only exceeds the supply because those who control the demand (e.g. ISPs) choose to limit the supply by not upgrading their networks to use IPv6.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Control the Spice, Control the World"
Srsly though, everyone who wants to "sell unused IP space" needs to take a CCNA course and lurn up on some routing facts.
IPv4 space is divided into large blocks, /22 or larger (aka 1024 address blocks) which are listed in the Global Routing Table (several hundreds of megabytes long) and then distributed to EVERY BORDER GATEWAY on the planet, including mine.
Getting traffic routed to one IP means knowing which very large block it is in, and sending the traffic down the ri
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 is not ready for mainstream use yet.
Yes it is. The problem is that no one is using it, and many applications are IPv6 unaware. When we "run out" I am guessing that this will change fast.
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Informative)
GE - 3.nnn.nnn.nnn
IBM - 9.nnn.nnn.nnn
AT&T Bell Labs 12.nnn.nnn.nnn
Xerox 13.nnn.nnn.nnn
HP 15.nnn.nnn.nnn
DEC 16.nnn.nnn.nnn
Apple 17.nnn.nnn.nnn
MIT 18.nnn.nnn.nnn
Ford 19.nnn.nnn.nnn
CSC 20.nnn.nnn.nnn
Halliburton 34.nnn.nnn.nnn
Eli Lilly Co 40.nnn.nnn.nnn
Bell Northern Research 47.nnn.nnn.nnn
Prudential 48.nnn.nnn.nnn
UK Work and Pensions 51.nnn.nnn.nnn
Dupont 52.nnn.nnn.nnn
Cap Debis 53.nnn.nnn.nnn
Merck 54.nnn.nnn.nnn
USPS 56.nnn.nnn.nnn
Defense doesn't need 7 - count them - 7 all to itself!
That's 26 - more than 10% - that can be mostly harvested.
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhuh.
Let's pretend, just for the moment, that this idea isn't ridiculous (it'd be simpler to deploy v6 than to get all those operators to re-number their networks). The current projected timeline for the remaining 20 /8s to run out is September, 2011, which is 17 months away. You propose to return 26 /8s to the pool. So, assuming the rate remains constant (which it won't), that gives us, what, 24 more months? Maybe?
Wow, way to go big guy! Instead of 2011 for IANA exhaustion, it'll now be 2013! Problem solved.
Re:The Internet is Full (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, way to go big guy! Instead of 2011 for IANA exhaustion, it'll now be 2013! Problem solved.
He's planning for the world to end in 2012.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting, I see you ignored the actual meat of my argument, instead focusing on what was really a bit of a tangental point. Nevertheless...
From a security point of view, most of their computers SHOULD be re-numbered so that their addresses aren't publicly routable.
Uhh, bullshit.
That's precisely equivalent to arguing that NAT somehow provides additional security over a traditional firewall, a statement any good network administrator realizes is pure crap.
As for needing those IPs, there are many reasons t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
dev/null (Score:5, Funny)
Send users to dev/null.
Re:dev/null (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time.
Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone. Do all those companies really need all those IP blocks? Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. The world has had how long now to move to IPv6? If we had two additional years, we'd be talking about this two years from now instead of right now. I've been using it for nearly 10 years now. I just hope that this threat is finally becoming significant enough to get ISPs and other organizations moving faster in the right direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason nobody is rushing to fix it is because it isn't a big problem.
It's not like the Y2K bug, where stuff could blow up if it wasn't fixed before the clock struck midnight.
You know what is going to happen the first time ARIN says no? The organization will go "Oh, ok.Can I get a nice block of IPv6 instead?" and add some protocol translation to their network to deal with anything that can't handle IPv6. Done. Problem solved.
In other words, there is nothing to freak out about at all.
Seriously people,
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
add some protocol translation to their network to deal with anything that can't handle IPv6
You do realize that you need IPv4 addresses to do that, don't you? IPv4 systems can't talk to you if you don't have IPv4 addresses. Let's say you want to host virtual private servers for 1000 customers and each server must be individually reachable from the IPv4-only internet. What do you do if you can't get 1000 IPv4 addresses? Nothing, you're fucked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know what is going to happen the first time ARIN says no? The organization will go "Oh, ok.Can I get a nice block of IPv6 instead?" and add some protocol translation to their network to deal with anything that can't handle IPv6. Done. Problem solved.
Except, that block of addresses will be worthless since no one who uses brain-dead ISPs (ie, 99% of them) will be able to connect to you.
And that "protocol translation" is functionally identical to NAT, with all of its downsides. In fact, the popular solutions for that are named NAT64 and NAT46, even though they are a bit more heavyweight, requiring DNS hackery. And both do absolutely nothing a dual-stack node can't do. Hint: all modern systems are dual-stack.
Promote IPV6-only free porn, games and warez (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, we've had almost 10 years. Strike that, 12 years.
We've even had all OS and router support for 5 years.
Fact of the matter is, nobody's moving to IPv6 until they *have* to. We can cry doom and gloom all we want (we have been, after all), and nobody cares. When Comcast can't address new customers, they'll get off their ass.
Though that's a bit of a gamble. The right answer is moving to IPv6, the best answer is doing that in advance, but they'll definitely consider just NATting new customers. Hopefully they'll do things properly, but this is ISPs we're talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but they'll definitely consider just NATting new customers.
Trouble is, 99% of users won't even notice. If they profile the users to figure out which ones won't notice beforehand, even more.
Re: (Score:2)
99% of users have computers that handle IPv6 just fine, most consumer routers even do it just fine.
This is such a non-issue it's just hilarious watching everybody freak about it.
Re: (Score:2)
99% of users have computers that handle IPv6 just fine, most consumer routers even do it just fine.
This is such a non-issue it's just hilarious watching everybody freak about it.
Look, we pay fortunes for movies about NYC, and every big city or group, being invaded by alien, destroyed by sea monsters, bombed, flooded, attacked, and transformed into a prison. We enjoy fictional death and disaster as entertainment, to blow away the awful contrast in real life, boredom. This is a free story of doom that we want to fantasize about being true, just like y2k. So, fan the virtual flames, and get out the popcorn. IPV4 will be the end of the civilized world as we know it, and that's it, unt
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
They definitely say no. Not only that, if the utilization of your existing IP space drops below a certain threshold, ARIN will start taking it back. And they won't take back your emptier networks, they'll take back whatever they want (usually the largest ones, i.e. the ones you most want to keep). They also no longer issue anything bigger than... I think a /22? It might even be smaller.
Everybody except ARIN was always like this, of course. ARIN could afford to be more generous because the US has a disproportionately large number of IPs for its population (and even for its server count). But now they're in the same boat as APNIC and RIPE, so they've gotten much stricter than they used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Address space shouldn't be a scarce resource. The only reason that it is presently behaving like one is because of the cost associated with transitioning to IPv6. However, it really isn't ARIN's responsibility to regulate allocation based on need. Everyone is going to have to transition to IPv6, might as well happen sooner rather than later.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree.
Also I suggest opening up .XXX and make all the porn guys move their sites to the .XXX namespace. Plus make them migrate to IPV6 so the rest of us can just stick with IPV4
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
You conveniently cut out the part of the quote that said ARIN would "receive a request for IPv4 address space that is justified and meets the policy". Have you ever applied for IPv4 space? ARIN does say no if your application does not have sufficient justification. I've had it happen, when someone decided we needed to apply for space when we hadn't really filled our existing space (it was just assigned inefficiently).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.
The current shortage is a surprise to no-one. There's no reason to think that another year or so is any different if the year or so falls in 2012 or in 2011 (unless the world ends in 2012 and the extermination of the human race frees up all the IP addresses.)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
However, ARIN won't have the address space. So we'll have to say no for the very first time.
Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone. Do all those companies really need all those IP blocks? Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.
Too late. Hindsight is 20/20, etc. Does MIT really need a /8? No. Does HP need two? No. But as with any scarce resource when no more IPv4 addresses are available they will rise in value and people will auction off their space. The price will have an upper bound at the cost of deploying IPv6. That'll buy us another few years. And then people will NAT even more. That'll buy us a few more. And by that time most people will be ready to move to v6. There really is no need to panic here. I'm not sure where all of the anxiety stems from. The people that understand the issue and care about it are aware of it and on top of it. I suspect an ulterior motive.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They never say no to anyone.
...a practice that spammers frequently take advantage of to churn through blocks of essentially disposable IP space. They do this to avoid sender-reputation based blocking techniques, which are used by pretty much all modern spam filters these days. The focus used to be on content inspection tools like SpamAssassin, but I digress.
Spammers typically start out by setting up a "grey" block of IP addressses that they use to basically filter down their lists of email addresses to remove honey pots and emails t
So now the question is... (Score:2)
Who's even trying to transition to IPv6? Considering how close we are to IPv4 Ragnarök, the changeover should be close to finished by now. I don't see any real sign that it's even started.
Re: (Score:2)
The changeover will never happen until the IPv4 address space is exhausted. At that point, something will have to be done.
However.. what that will be is up for debate. They could reclaim blocks from companies and then hand out 1 IP for them to run behind a NAT firewall; they could start to charge for IPv4 addresses on a yearly basis and they'll get loads returned to them; they could just say 'none available' and hand out an IPv6 block instead.
I'm not sure which of the above will happen, but its going to be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They could reclaim blocks from companies and then hand out 1 IP for them to run behind a NAT firewall
I believe that's already being done. Though I believe the biggest single owner is DoD.
they could start to charge for IPv4 addresses on a yearly basis
Good idea. Never happen.
I've advocated charging a higher fee for second level domain names for a long time. After all, if you really need one, paying $30/year or even a lot more, is a minor expense compared to your hosting costs. It would put an end to cybersquatting. But every time I suggest it, I get flamed half to death. People won't pay a penny more than they have to for something, and never mind the consequences. Ca
Re: (Score:2)
$30 is 63% of what I pay yearly for hosting.
Re:So now the question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, let's say the IPv4 space ran out today and your ISP said you now have to run your server out of an IPv6 address.
You're now forced to move your server to another ISP that still has addresses available (probably ones that will start NATing all their non-server based clients so they can use their IPv4 allocations for server use).
If ISPs start moving non-server clients over to IPv6, then things will transition slowly, and at some point (ie. in 5 years) it will become feasible to run a server solely in the IPv6 address space as it will be accessible by the majority of users. Things progress this way until only a few dedicated IPv4 servers/clients are now safely behind translation routers.
However, instead of using IPv6, the sad thing is those ISPs will probably use IPv4 NAT to do the translation. The net effect is we push the crunch out a couple more years, but the following future is likely to develop as:
Fast forward a couple of years and now you find that all the ISPs charge a significant amount extra to run your server from an IPv4 address. You just pay more as it's just business as usual and you have no other choice. The ISPs with huge allocations are all laughing as they can leverage their allocated spaces at ever increasing dollar amounts. It's wonderful! The geeks aren't happy, because now it costs a lot more money to run their non-profit servers. Big business doesn't care, because it helps them by increasing the barrier to entry for smaller companies trying to compete with them on the internet front.
Fast forward five more years and things are now getting out of hand. Everyone is running behind NATed 10.x.x.x addresses (except large public servers), every second URL contains a port designator, port 80 web servers are now a luxury, ISPs are giving users the option of cheaper port redirects back to their own servers, and people are claiming that we've solved the problem for another 10 years.
Still the geeks are worried, but no one else cares. They now have less 'cruft' on the internet to worry about, and as long as they can still get to their Bittorrent/Porn/Facebook/YouTube they are happy as Larry.
Re:So now the question is... (Score:5, Informative)
Trying? I'm done.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too.
This posting coming to you from 2001:8b0:e9:1:222:69ff:fe07:5046
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. But hackers who've transitioned their personal networks isn't going to help much if the main Internet infrastructure doesn't support the new stack.
Re: (Score:2)
My PC has been IPv6 compatible for like, six or eight years now I think. I'm not sure exactly.
I'm not sure why everyone is freaking out about this, it's a non-issue. Anybody using a home router might have to upgrade, but then again the ISP may just put in NAT routing to IPv4 so they don't have to deal with angry customers who's routers don't work.
It's not a big deal, and it can be dealt with when it's actually an issue. There is no need to worry about it now. As demand for IPv6 becomes high, routers wil
Easy (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You run out of IP addresses on your LAN?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Happens often in small companies that grow and run only a single subnet with a /24.
While this is always easy to fix, some companies don't want to risk restructuring their LAN.
Why run IPV6? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every once in a while I think about it, then I can't find a reason. Anyone?
ipv6porn?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's somebody else problem. The question is, who?
everybody somebody nobody anybody (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why run IPV6? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet was designed so that any computer could connect to any other computer. This is evident in the design of things like FTP, etc.
Every phone, watch, fridge, TiVo, computer, and printer should have a public IP address. Imagine if you didn't need to port forward for Bittorrent, if Skype could connect right to your friend's computer, or you could print to your home printer by just entering its address. That's how the internet was/is supposed to work.
NAT breaks this. Behind a NAT box, nobody can address a specific computer - only the NAT itself. This happens to lend some security, but is essentially accidental. With IPv6, your home router will instead be a firewall. Each computer will be addressable, but will still need to pass through.
Plus, there's enough address to give each subscriber many thousand. And they don't need to change. No more charging for a static IP...
Also, routing is more efficient since it can be done properly by hierarchy.
So there's a bunch of reasons. Pick some.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, personally I'm not into BSDM. NAT is an unnecessary pain and a ugly hack that raises complexity and breaks stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, there's enough address to give each subscriber many thousand. And they don't need to change. No more charging for a static IP...
And you've just listed one of the biggest reasons why we don't yet have IPv6, and why the major ISPs are in no hurry to do so. Do you have any idea how much extra they charge for an extra IP, let alone for a static one? if everyone already had multiple statics that revenue stream would dry up instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For BitTorrent clients, see this list [wikipedia.org] (sort by the last column). Includes uTorrent, Transmission, Vuze, KTorrent, BitTorrent 6, BitTornado, qBitTorrent, Opera, BitTyrant, and Deluge, among others.
On the tracker side, Opentracker—used by TPB and many others—also supports IPv6.
Perhaps the end of /. stories on end of IPv4 (Score:5, Funny)
But somehow I doubt it.
The end of the internet (Score:2)
Hmm no big deal will happen? (Score:2)
Re:Hmm no big deal will happen? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmm no big deal will happen? (Score:4, Informative)
Funny. Despite the amount of posts you have created here, you still don't realize where the real problem is. For any IPv4 host to reach your IPv6 hosts through protocol translation, you still need to have an IPv4 address. And this is a problem if there are no more IPv4 addresses available.
Try a thought experiment, you are an IPv4 host on the "old" internet, and you are trying to ping an IPv6 host behind protocol translation. What will you write to the command line? I would be interested to see how you would manage to answer this without the IPv6 host having an IPv4 address assigned as well.
Of course you are correct about all the routers and operating systems being IPv6 ready. But that is not the problem, accessing the old internet is the problem.
well... (Score:2)
I see several things happening (Score:2)
1: multinationals will probablly try to bend the rules to try and get IPs from a different rir (some rirs will run out before others).
2: isps will push end lusers* behind ISP level NAT in order to free up addresses for more important/lucrative purposes.
3: some sort of sale of IPs will probablly happen, whether it is sanctioned by IANA and the RIRs or not.
* we geeks will probablly be able to get public IPs but at a price premium.
Re: (Score:2)
China will probably cut over first (Score:2)
China will probably cut over to IPv6 first. They started in 2000, and the 2008 Olympics was all IPv6. It was clear long ago that China alone needed more address space than IPv4 could provide. The government also likes the "everybody has a permanent IP address" concept, for control purposes.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if China went all IPv6 domestically, with any translation to IPv4 at the "Great Firewall".
All mobile devices should have been on IPv6 by now.
Why not break open the Class E block? (Score:2)
The entire 240/ block is reserved. Is there something wrong with those IP addresses?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's classified as Experimental Use, so who knows what the existing IP implementations out there did to special case it in the code. So then you're out to updating firmwares and OSs to cope with the ability to us 240/4. Now as that's 16 /8s, and we're currently burning through a /8 per month, that's 1.33 years of additional time before we're out of v4 again. The proper solution is to use that time spent updating firmware and OSs, to do just that, but for IPv6, which will be able to go for much mo
Time to start hoarding... (Score:4, Funny)
in the short term... (Score:3, Insightful)
in the short term it will add value to IPv4 addresses, and organizations not using them might *gasp* make money getting rid of ones it doesn't need. That's not a bad thing. We have this problem with spectrum too, there's no particular cost in having a huge chunk idling away once you've got it. Anything which motivated more efficient utilization is good, and money creates a motivation.
A short term will drive up the cost of IPv4 addresses will, in turn, make IPv6 look much more economically viable to people who actually pay for things. As with everything else in the real wold: money makes things happen. IPv6 isn't magically cheaper than IPv4, so no one has been all that bothered about it, so either you lower the cost of IPv6 or raise the cost of IPv4, and running out of IPv4 addresses manages the latter nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:2)
So, ARIN will say no. Will the Internet collapse because of that? Hell no. Whoever wants more IP addresses will have to go out on the free market and try purchasing them from someone. As it becomes a valuable asset companies and ISPs will see if they can charge extra for having their own IP address so they can sell the others. How many could live off a NAT'd connection? Or if you got say a machine with 100 incoming ports routed to you, could you configure any servers and whatnot to use that range? Eventuall
Windows and IPv6 (Score:2)
Googling for something on the impact shifting to IPv6 got me to this pre 2006 article: http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/IPv6-Support-Microsoft-Windows.html [windowsnetworking.com]
A good read. Seems that although there is limited IPv6 support on Win95/98, but it is better to just dump the OS when the time comes. It seems that fun times are to be had in the new feature for sysadmins and techs everywhere...
Contact tne Class B holders (Score:3, Insightful)
...and offer them some serious wonga to switch to IPv6 and/or make more use of DHCP/NAT etc.
A lot of Universities have class B blocks (and a lot of those addresses are assigned to Ethernet cards now sitting in dusty cupboards and landfills). Still a non-trivial job, but probably easier for universities than big business.
Universities are gagging for cash at the moment - and even if all the cash is spent on the switch
Or the gub'ment can make them do it. Here in the UK, back in the 80s, the powers that be were forcing universities to use the ISO networking protocols: forcing them to switch to IPv6 is far less silly than that (e.g. unlike the ISO stack the IPv6 protocol actually exists and has been implemented by people).
Prices go up (Score:2)
Hosts that dont need visibility will be NATd (Score:3, Insightful)
Phones, TVs, and millions of other devices that will never need to act as servers will be forced behind NAT walls.
There will be two price structures, client access and server addresses.
Client, will be NAT only. Server will have a real address whether it be fixed or variable.
Maybe they will even charge by DHCP lease time statistics.
Eventually, the entire IPv4 address range will be relegated to servers. And all the clients will be IPv6. They will be told that the "tunneling" is just temporary, but it will in fact be permanent.
In related news, Pacific ocean found (Score:4, Insightful)
Similar to the expansion of the US "wild west", we're due for years of backfilling and territory arguments. Look ahead to the owners of /8 address ranges having them confiscated. (MIT, for example, hardly needs it: they should be NAT'ing all their internal traffic anyway to prevent "computer science majors" from pulling stupid stunts like the David LaMacchia case (http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=169520).
NAT is notoriously lighter weight to support than IPv6, and helps provide some border control of undesirable services from inside your network. Replacing the router infrastructure and the configuration tools for stable, legacy systems to support IPv6 is expensive and the benefits of IPv6 are frankly underwhelming. It's exciting "auto-configuration" is, in most cases, a horrendously bad idea for public facing systems, and private systems don't need it. Useful security features, such as IPsec, were backported to IPv4. And the robust technical features of IPsec seem to be overwhelmed by the far easier to use client behavior of PPTP.
Multicast? Oh, dear. Do _not_ get me started on the flaws of multicast programmers decided that the lack of information about missed packets in multicast forcing them to rewrite TCP, badly, as an unstable software layer on top of multicast.
Comcast is starting IPv6 (Score:3, Interesting)
I just relocated to Virginia and to my surprise, Comcast is providing IPv6 addresses on their residential links. I'm going to activate IPv6 on my dd-wrt router and all my PCs sometime this weekend.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Youtube + Apple = ISP IPv6 (Score:4, Informative)
There are currently two companies forcing the hand of the consumer ISPs to adopt IPv6.
Since February this year Youtube has put all the actual media reachable on IPv6 as default when you access the youtube website through their normal DNS name.
Apple's time capsule and airport extreme by default sets up IPv6 through tunnels.
This means that a lot of people with Apple computers browsing youtube movies are heavy users of IPv6.
As there are only a few tunnel brokers, the load on those will be quite high.
It's simple (Score:4, Interesting)
The Class A owners will sell off chunks of their space one B class at a time.
Maybe slashdot should go ipv6 only... (Score:4, Interesting)
...and we can watch the nerds scramble to upgrade their home and work enterprises so they can access it. :-P
I'm joking, or at least I think I am. If Slashdot did that I'm sure I would put more effort into getting an ipv6 address.
Over twenty years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Investment about to pay off! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Auction? (Score:4, Informative)
There are a few. See figure 5 of Geoff Huston's IPv4 Address Report [potaroo.net].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, there are calculations. They all come to the same conclusion: The effort needed to get those addresses back in to use is enormous and the benefit would be that the final deadline moved 12-18 months forward...
In other words, it's not even close to being worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on what your problems were, they may not have been faults in Windows 7. (Am I allowed to say that on Slashdot?) A common problem with getting started on ipv6 is having something on your LAN which says it can provide ipv6 connectivity but in fact can't. Client PCs then try to use the faulty gateway and the result is very slow or broken web browsing. As soon as ipv6 is disabled on the client PC, it all starts to work and so the ipv6 implementation on that PC unjustly gets the blame.
Tinhat solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this is one of the biggest hypes since the y2k bug fiasco... they've been telling us we're going to run out next year for YEARS now..
No they haven't. At least not the serious people. 2011 has been the projected year for quite a while. Easily verified by just using archive.org to look at the history of the potaroo.net automated IPv4 exhaustion counter. It has tracked 2011 as the year of exhaustion since at least 2006 (first entry in archive.org)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
well y2k arrived just a the predicted time ...