RIPE Region Runs Out of IPv4 Addresses 241
New submitter 8-Track writes "The RIPE NCC, the Regional Internet Registry for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, distributed the last blocks of IPv4 address space from the available pool. This means they are now distributing IPv4 address space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) from the last /8. An ISP may receive one /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses), even if they can justify a larger allocation. This /22 allocation will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. Time to move to IPv6!"
The internet is full. Go away. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't we already have enough people on the internet? Why do we keep encouraging more? :-)
Note: to all you humor-impaired people, the smiley face indicates this is a JOKE.
Re: (Score:3)
I see a huge business opportunity!
1. Fuck IPv6. Let's keep the IP addresses a rare and highly desired commodity;
2. Charge an exorbitant fee every time a DHCP request is serviced;
3. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Too late, the ISPs already got that covered with their insane prices per fixed IP address.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> 2. Charge an exorbitant fee every time a DHCP request is serviced;
> 3. Profit!
The problem with this is, IPv4 addresses are not rare. They're not anything like rare. There are approximately ten thousand times as many of them as are actually needed.
We only ran out because they were systematically over-allocated, handed out like free candy, based purely on requests, with no regard for actual need or common sense. My e
Re:The internet is full. Go away. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with this is, IPv4 addresses are not rare. They're not anything like rare. There are approximately ten thousand times as many of them as are actually needed.
Well, with only 32 bits of address space, that's only 4,294,967,296 possible addresses, and there are already more people on the planet. We do need more.
Re:The internet is full. Go away. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck NAT. Don't you dare preach that ugly hack as the Right Way to solve the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NAT
Stopped reading right there. NATs break the internet at a fundamental level and make any peer-to-peer technologies unworkable without retardedly complicated security holes. No, no, no, this is a terrible idea and you should feel terrible for having it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IPv6 is not a solution to this problem. If we allocate IPv6 addresses the way we have allocated IPv4 addresses, we'll run out of them in just a few more years.
You make some good points, but this one is just silly. I think 10^38 IP addresses will last more than a few years, even if given out excessively. That's about 2 IP addresses for each cell in the human body for the entire world population. It's a big number.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, NAT was a problem 10 years ago in the IRC age. My first exposure to it was trying to figure out why the hell I could chat to people but not send/receive files. I can only dream of how much better the general experience of using the internet might get for people if P2P would "just work".
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Iran going to build their own Persian Intranet? Surely they have a few IPv4 addresses that can now be returned to the pool.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't we already have enough people on the internet? Why do we keep encouraging more? :-)
Note: to all you humor-impaired people, the smiley face indicates this is a JOKE.
But the internet is serious business! [techi.com]
time to do... something (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble is there has been a chicken and egg problem.
The internet is mostly a network of buisnesses (with the occasional academic network thrown in). Some of those buisnesses sell service to other buisnesses and consumers, some just use it to support their main buisness.
There is basically no benefit and significant cost to an buisness in deploying dual stack while v6 only nodes are basically unheard of.
You can't really deploy v6 only nodes while there are a significant number of v4 only nodes*
So for each
IPv6? (Score:2, Funny)
There is no such thing as IPv6. Once we run out of IPv4 addresses, the internet will implode and everything will be lost.
The rapture is here!
Re: (Score:3)
2112 - end of the world!
oh wait
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rush has one of the best drummers in rock history, and a bass player that is considered by many to certainly be in the top ten or twenty. It's hard to say Rush does not have musical talent, even if the music they make isn't to your liking.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is you're trying to apply reasoning to taste. You and the posters above you. Talent may be measurable to some degree, but it would be an enormous waste of time to determine and measure all of the criteria, and most performers are unlikely to participate in the process; but music quality is determined by more than just talent.
As a silly example, it's debatable who has more talent in a class of guitarists which includes folks like Joe Satriani, Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai and so on, but I personall
Re: (Score:2)
Rush is an impressive band that makes amazing music. But, the Beatles sucked.
I don't know if you're joking, stupid, ignorant, or just a twelve year old. The Beatles had a lot of songs I didn't like, but they produced art that changed music forever. I doubt anybody since Mozart has been so influential in music.
Ever heard "Old Brown Shoe"? Amazing bass riff. Not hard to play but damned original... but you wouldn't know that unless you were around before the song came out (and it was a "B" side that got no air
Re: (Score:2)
And since I'm running a small webserver from home, which I presume will remain IP4 indefinitely, what's the easiest way to tell if somebody with an IP6 address can access it?
Re:IPv6? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't know the answer to that question, then the answer is no. You need to actually update your DNS records for the domain to include an AAAA record with your IPv6 address. Without that record an IPv6 only client will have no way of even trying to reach your domain. So, you need to get an IPv6 address, and then put that IPv6 record in DNS. If your Internet provider doesn't provide IPv6, then you have three options. Use a tunnel (tunnelbroker.net is the one I have the best experience with), switch to a better Internet provider, or wait for your current Internet provider to catch up.
Users who have both IPv4 and IPv6 will be able to reach your website, even if your website only has IPv4. The users, which will experience problems, are those who have only IPv6. There is still a couple of ways ISPs can make those users reach your site, but they involve NAT, which will reduce the reliability. Those NAT solutions come in two flavours. There are the CGN solutions, which are just doing IPv4 and work similar to the typical NAT people have at home, just at a larger scale. The other option is NAT64, where the NAT translates between IPv6 and IPv4.
Re:IPv6? (Score:5, Funny)
>The rapture is here!
It's the IPocalypse!
Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Time to crackdown and revoke/reclaim IP's
Re:Recyle Recyle Recyle.... (Score:5, Insightful)
or, you know, just use ipv6.
Re: (Score:2)
And I would, if my ISP had ipv6 addresses available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are better reasons to choose an ISP than IPv6 availability. Like the fact that I often get 11mbps while paying for a 10mbps line.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, some still use apps written for IE6 and haven't moved since.
Redoing their network to accept IPv6 is not going to be high on their priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are mostly internal. Internal dual stack is easy.
Re: (Score:2)
ISP's/corporations have to commit to that
No they don't. Any ISP/corp that doesn't want to use IPv6 is free to sit back and watch parts of the Internet become unavailable to them and their users. Of course by choosing this path they chose to eventually die, but it is their choice to make.
Doing something other than IPv6 simply because people won't make the effort is like sticking to horse-drawn vehicles because people don't want the hassle of having to visit petrol pumps and towns/cities don't want the hassle of constructing the required infrastr
Re: (Score:2)
Any ISP/corp that doesn't want to pay for IPv4 addresses for their public services and pay for some mechanism to allow their users to access servers on the IPv4 internet is free to sit back and watch as they lose the ability to sell to many of their customers and buy from many of their suppliers over the internet. Of course by chosing this path they have a good chance of going broke (or getting overridden in a shareholder revolt) sooner rather than later but it is their choice to make.
Now personally I will
Re: (Score:3)
Time to crackdown and revoke/reclaim IP's
So there's 7 billion people and 4 billion IP addresses, how'd that work even if you could reclaim every range and achieve perfect routing and perfect efficiency meaning you couldn't be online at home or at work and on the phone at the same time. You'd just run into the same problem a little bit down the road as another billion people go online. Pretty soon there won't be any other choice.
Re: (Score:3)
You blindly assume that everyone online on the net needs a seperate IP address. But that is clearly wrong. The place where I work has only 16 public IP addresses, yet there are about 500 PCs buzzing along with people surfing and mailing.
Considering that we're about 2.3 billion people online [internetworldstats.com] and we're already talking about running out, we're using considerably more than 1 IP/person today. And if the entire world eventually reach North American penetration rates there's another 3 billion coming online. And most now believe the world population will peak at 10 billion so there's another 2.3 billion as well. Yes, with enough NAT you could probably make it sort of work but it'd be the end of the Internet as we know it. Only ISPs, big companies
Not unexpected (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure. Carrier Grade NAT is quite expensive as well, and a big mess to administer. It is much worth than NAT at your home router as plug and play can be used by programmes to open ports dynamically. So once you go CGN, expect many support calls because of broken stuff.
I expect most ISPs to hand out native IPv6, and - once out of IPv4 - offer CGN as a stopgap for users to reach IPv4-only servers. The biggest and most popular sites are IPv6 enabled already, and I would expect the others to follow suit
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a list of what works and does not work with CGN:
What NAT444 Breaks
We are left with a number of applications (and application types) that currently break when Large Scale NAT is introduced. To avoid the doom and gloom feeling that is sure to follow a list of just the broken stuff, let’s start with a list of what isn’t broken by NAT444/LSN:
Web browsing
Email
FTP download
Re: (Score:2)
That's called carrier based NAT and ISP's do not want to go to it. The regulators have made it clear that carrier based NAT won't have legal shielding (i.e. they screw up as a result they are liable) and at the same time it is just as expensive as implementing v6. There will not be carrier based NAT.
Re:Not unexpected (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah agreed. I've been on native IPv6 (dual stack, obviously) for, hmm, approaching two years now (I'm in the APNIC area so they ran out of IPv4 a while ago) and honestly I'm only reminded of the fact when someone brings IPv6 up in an article or something. The changeover was easy from the user's perspective - it just works. Indeed I suspect many users of my ISP don't even know they are on IPv6.
The resistance and heel-dragging on the changeover in many places/companies is a bit mystifying to me. It's not really that hard.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah agreed. I've been on native IPv6 (dual stack, obviously) for, hmm, approaching two years now (I'm in the APNIC area so they ran out of IPv4 a while ago) and honestly I'm only reminded of the fact when someone brings IPv6 up in an article or something. The changeover was easy from the user's perspective - it just works. Indeed I suspect many users of my ISP don't even know they are on IPv6. The resistance and heel-dragging on the changeover in many places/companies is a bit mystifying to me. It's not really that hard.
Well as long as you are on dual stack you have an IPv4 address for everything that needs an IPv4 address, but it doesn't solve anything as no more people can run that than there are IPv4 addresses. How much would cease to work if you went IPv6 only? Because that's the only Internet connection they can offer soon. And if you don't see the problem you don't know the average company's pile of legacy/custom code that will all assume it's using IPv4 and nothing else that nobody knows or the vendor will charge a
Re: (Score:3)
Well you're right of course - when they truly run out of IPv4, those that get connected after that date will only be able to 'see' the IPv6 portions of the internet. Which is why it's important that we get at least ~most~ of the net running IPv6 before that happens. Currently let's face it, most stuff is still IPv4 only (although the major sites - Google, Facebook, anything served from Akamai etc. are all nicely dual stacked now, and I'm noticing it increasing rapidly ... my router reports approx 15% of my
Re: (Score:2)
No what will happen is that v4 addresses will be in a dynamically allocated pool and for communicated within your ISP's network you'll use v6. Everyone understands the v4 pool will exist. But things like: geolocation, session maintenance... will get much much worse.
And so far it has been phones then moving home / small business over.
Re: (Score:3)
Less than what ceases to work by going in a NAT.
That's because nobody will go IPv6 only, they'll go IPv6 and get behind a IPv4 NAT. Well, at least the lucky ones will, others will have only the NAT.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's the only Internet connection they can offer soon.
Bullshit, they can offer you:
v4 only with a private IP and ISP level NAT
v6+v4 dual stack with a public v6 IP a private v4 IP and ISP level v4 NAT
v6 with a public v6 IP and ds-lite
v6 with a public v6 IP with NAT64 and DNS64
They will also be able to offer public v4 as a premium service once they push their bottom tier of users onto one of the above.
Remember your ISP's existing v4 IPs won't dissapear, they will just have to reduce the average number used per customer (or buy IP addresses on the market) if the
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. IPv6 equipment can support dual stack and mappings. Users can share dynamically allocated address from a pool, as it is needed less and less. The v4 internet as a low feature, legacy support system is not a problem.'
What's a problem is making it the primary system.
Personally? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to wait it out and skip straight from IPv4 to IPv8... IPv6 could be the Windows Vista of the IP world.
that's like five better (Score:3)
Re:Personally? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not just use IPv9
RFC 1606: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1606.txt [ietf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just use IPv9
RFC 1606: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1606.txt [ietf.org]
Oh no! Is the IETF on the same updating scheme as Mozilla?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, that was IPv5... so you see, you're the guy who skipped windows xp, vista, and windows 7, jumping straight into the broken windows 8 era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv5 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 8 is not broken. It will work as designed.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a non-sequitur.
"It works as designed" does not imply "It's not broken".
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're applying the word 'broken' as if they intended to meet your expectations.
Windows 8 is intended to change your expectations. That's Microsoft's plan, not mine.
Re: (Score:3)
They are mostly forgotten. It is possible to find the version 2 specification on the web. It does differ en some important ways. For example back then the separation between IP and TCP had not yet happened. So the specification is actually called TCP version 2. The IP and TCP fields were not as clearly separated, and the version number was not even the first field in the packet. It is a bit tricky to find out what the version number is when its loca
Make an offer (Score:2)
There are companies out there with IP allocations from the dawn of time they are not (or should not) be using since most clients don't need fully routed addresses. Time to set a market price on IPv4 addresses. At the right price we might throw one of our two class Cs in the pot - not much, but there's a lot more out there.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is still growing exponentially better efficiency for the used addresses doesn't buy you much time. Not worth the hassle.
All cool sites are already running IPv6. (Score:5, Informative)
Like youtube, google, facebook and slashdot.
ok, all except slashdot.
I have the solution (Score:3)
Party-line IP addresses [wikipedia.org]
Yeah, sure, sometimes you might be trying to access /., and end up at teletubbies.com, but, hey, recycling.
Why aren't we on IPv6 yet? (Score:2, Interesting)
Serious question. Why aren't we all on v6?
This is something the ISPs, the upstreams, well the big guys in general have to do. As an end user I couldn't care less. I don't know my IP address (yes I can look it up if really needed). I don't care what it is. I don't care if I'm on v4 or v5 or v6 or whatever. I just want an Internet connection. That's all. Just make sure my web sites resolve - that shouldn't be too hard either, I know there are v4-to-v6 and v.v. tricks.
As a savvy end user, for my home network,
Re:Why aren't we on IPv6 yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is something the ISPs, the upstreams, well the big guys in general have to do. As an end user I couldn't care less.
As an end user you shouldn't have to care, but when the upstream guys haven't done their work and you can't access newpopularsoscialsite.com, which is IPv6 only, then you start getting annoyed and start trawling the net to see why things are broken. The problem is many of up the stream guys, at least in North America, have dropped the ball and aren't even offering options for techs who do care and are interested in being early adopters of native IPv6. Just don't get me started on some of the incompetent replies I have got from some ISPs.
As a savvy end user, for my home network, I will want to continue to use NAT or something equivalent. I don't want my printer, my desktop, my laptop and my phone that connect to the WiFi to have an externally approachable address.
If you configure your devices to only use link-local IPv6 addresses, then there is no reason they will be seen by the outside world. Even then, with a routable IPv6 address you can configure you firewall rules to only expose certain devices to the internet. In the IPv6 world the firewall will be your friend and I believe as it becomes a more important component people will work out ways of making it simpler to configure.
Re: (Score:3)
My ISP's done all the above (been using native IPv6 for >2 years), and you're right ... done properly it's transparent to the end user and everything just works as it always has. It was done as an opt-in trial for the first year or so (you just changed your PPP login details from user@isp.net to user@ipv6.isp.net). Then after ironing out any issues, they just turned it on for all new customers by default. The sky hasn't fallen in.
In fact I forget all about IPv6 most of the time, only to be occasionally r
Device/OS issues (Score:2)
How many consumer devices a few years ago would have worked properly with a full switch to IPV6?
Even now, surely some stuff consumers still have and use will break - and that's why movement has been slow, because ISP's do not want a ton of support calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Most consumer devices still don't support v6. But that's not a problem. Inside the house you run dual stack. Your v4 devices happily live on 192.168.1.x just like they always have. And when they call out they go out a dynamically allocated v4 address which is fine since they use DHCP (at the house level) today.
Re: (Score:2)
They are switching over. It takes the ISP years to do a full end to end switch and support it. The first step was phones and that's working. The next is home / small business and almost all the major ISPs have pilot projects running.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious answer. Are you paying for it? Equipment costs, installation costs, staff costs for design and configuration, and all of it with the boss standing behind you asking, "Why are we spending all this money, again?"
It's not something they've had to do so far. If they have to do it in the future, well, they'll do it then.
Canada will soon be on its own (Score:2)
No Canadian ISP is live or in public trial of IPv6. Contacting most of them reveals that there is no knowledge of even field tests. At least in the USA Comcast has started providing IPv6. Here in Canada we are likely to be banging rocks when it comes to ISP innovation, when everyone has made their sites IPv6 accessible only.
Re: (Score:2)
what do you mean, "run out of addresses?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That one [xkcd.com] must be more in-topic.
Re: (Score:2)
I have IPv4 space to spare. (Score:2)
If you have money, come talk to me, we'll make a deal. If you are a non-profit-org, you may attempt to show how worthwhile your cause is and why it needs a /24 or larger.
We don't need IPv6! (Score:2)
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
And what about phones and other mobile devices? It is not just homes.
And how do these internets talk to one another?
Spinal Tap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Knocking botnets off the Internet would be annoying for those poor folks who didn't realize their systems had been compromised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>About seizing IP ranges, I meant looking for entire chunks of IPs that may have been bought by a "business" or "ISP" and then converted wholly into a spam farm
Nobody buys IP ranges to open a spam farm. Ever.
> From my point of view, sometimes it feels like there are armies being deliberately built out there.
Welcome to 10 years ago.
> I agree about compromised individuals
That's what a botnet is, millions of compromised individual machines not even from the same IP range, because IP range when buildi
Re: (Score:2)
Annoying yes, but if that's what has to be done...
People need to exercise some responsibility in securing their PC. You can be ticketed for having a dangerous vehicle that does not conform to road safety standards.
Re:spammers (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh. We've been over this countless times. Even if you managed to reclaim all IPv4 ranges that are not being completely used presently, you would buy yourself only a few more months (at current growth rates) until you ran out of addresses again.
I seriously have a hard time trying to understand why so many people on Slashdot seem to be militantly against IPv6. You'd expect more of an allegedly technologically literate audience.
Re: (Score:2)
A little extra time to shake out the bugs from any infrastructure upgrade seems couldn't hurt, too.
Re: (Score:3)
The time wouldnt be used for that though, it would be used to delay the rollout of ipv6.
Just like every excuse out there has been used... sigh
Re: (Score:3)
100% efficiency is unrealistic. Once the HD-ratio reaches 80-90% the administrative overhead and routing overhead becomes problematic. I think IPv4 by now has been pushed over 90%, and the problems are showing. With 32 bit addresses an HD ratio of 90% means we can effectively use about 29 bits. In terms of addresses, IPv4 has about 3.7 billion addresses (once you take into account, that some are reserved). Now raise that to the power of 0.9 to find out how many
Re:spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
how much longer would they have?
We currently use around 12 class A networks per year of which there are only 255 in total (many of which are unrelocatable due to being reserved for localhost, multicast and so on) . Whenever you hear people complaining about IBM or whoever holding a large chunk of IP addresses, that refers to a single class A network. So getting IBM, HP or Xerox to restructure their network and give back their IPs would buy you one month each time. There aren't a whole lot of companies holding class A networks, so you could at maximum get probably 2 years or so, realistically much less.
A little extra time to shake out the bugs from any infrastructure upgrade seems couldn't hurt, too.
We already had 14 years to do that, another one or two won't make a difference. IPv6 doesn't need time, it needs something that forces people to make the switch, running out of IPv4 seems to slowly building up to be that force.
Re: (Score:2)
It is exponential growth. Drastic measures that would make routing a huge mess (well beyond what today's routers can handle in terms of table complexity without latency skyrocketing) but you a few months extra worth of IPv4 addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I apologise if my post came out as harsh (since you are not against IPv6, it wasn't really directed to you).
In regard to your question, I propose the following thought experiment: it seems at the point of IPv4 address exhaustion, IANA had been burning through about twenty /8's per y
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is we have been hearing we only have a few months left for years now.
Re:spammers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:spammers (Score:4, Funny)
Re:spammers (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they did. You setup a v4 anywhere in your v6 subnet and map to it. It is a local mapping though so that routing remains v6 only.
Re: (Score:2)
They did do that (as one of the other replies points out). What I think you fail to grasp is that, no matter how "backwards-compliant" your extension is, you still have to teach everyone how to talk to the new-fangled addressed outside the original space, not just the machines that happen to be assigned the new-fangled addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 is incredibly confusing. I know how to set up a subnet for 172.20.18.0/24. Subnetting DEAD:BEEF:FEED:BEAD::1/56 is nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it isn't. It's easy. *Everything* is a /64 unless you have a really good reason why not. You should get at least a /56 for each site, for anything remotely "business-grade" a /48. You really don't have to care about numbers of hosts at all - start thinking in terms of what *networks* you need, how many of them, what your *subnet* addressing plan should look like...
It's not just more bits, it's a mindset-shift in how you design networks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 'against' IPv6 because it's a full bloat protocol rewrite instead of simple extension of IPv4. The latter would have been accepted and implemented much quicker, on a larger scale and at much less cost. In a way you could look at NAT as such an extension, one of its existential reasons being that IPv4 addresses always have been in scarce supply to anyone but the original colonizers of the void.
Yes, I know, there are other advantages advertised for IPv6. They must be really small given the lack of interes
Re:spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know where you get that IPv6 is a "full protocol rewrite" of IPv4. For the most part it does exactly the same as IPv4 except with more address bits, and in some cases it even simplifies its predecessor (e.g. no IP header checksum). Any person able to understand or implement IPv4 ought to be able to understand or implement IPv6, because there are no fundamentally new concepts. (I would venture that most people who criticise IPv6 don't even understand fully what IPv4 does, so they don't really know what they're talking about.)
I am also interested in hearing what a "simple extension of IPv4" would be, in your opinion. Odds are you will propose something to the tune of keeping the original IPv4 header and semantics, and tacking some extra address bits at the end. Except in that case you'd still have to teach every fucking router and end system in the world how to decode the new-fangled packets, which is not any different from IPv6 from a cost perspective. You might as well do it right and fix some of IPv4's warts (header checksum, autoconfiguration, node mobility, etc) instead of applying a band-aid solution.
NAT is hardly an acceptable extension of the IPv4 addressing space because NATted clients do not have the same capabilities of non-NATted clients. (Yes, I know about hole-punching techniques; they do not solve the problem fully, and in respect to what they do, they are defeated by many real-world NAT implementations.) If you don't understand the importance of this, I encourage you to read about the end-to-end principle. Finally, it is ludicrous to suggest that implementing NAT at the scale that will be required by the ever-growing Internet would be any cheaper than IPv6. Carrier-grade NAT doesn't exactly come for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it'd help much.
Most spammers don't sit on a single range for a long time, it'd be easy as pie to block. Speaking with first hand experience they'll get some low end basic server/VPS, and multiple IPs across multiple ranges then spam as much as they can till they are caught by the DC or get the ranges blocked.
It's a big red flag when someone asks for a lot of IPs on a low end servers. Either they are a spammer or don't know what they are doing.
DC does not like it since you now have multiple ranges wh
Re: (Score:2)
An incomplete list of people who will be affected:
1: admins/moderators of interactive websites who find it harder to identify/ban users because of the inevitable rise of ISP level NAT (granted this is already a problem to some degree but is likely to get much worse).
2: users hit by bans aimed at thier shared IP either because the website owner didn't know it was shared or because they decide that the collateral damage is acceptable.
3: users who use software that needs to accept incoming connections on packa
Re: (Score:2)
On (1) I think you mean pools. Carriers don't generally use NAT.
On (3) the service can accept a v6 address. That will likely get better. If not generally v6's have the entire v4 space mapped inside a subnet.
On (4) . Yes. Good.