Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Internet

Whatever Happened To the IPv4 Address Crisis? 574

alphadogg writes "In February 2011, the global Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) allocated the last blocks of IPv4 address space to the five regional Internet registries. At the time, experts warned that within months all available IPv4 addresses in the world would be distributed to ISPs. Soon after that, unless everyone upgraded to IPv6, the world would be facing a crisis that would hamper Internet connectivity for everyone. That crisis would be exacerbated by the skyrocketing demand for IP addresses due to a variety of factors: the Internet of Things (refrigerators needing their own IP address); wearables (watches and glasses demanding connectivity); BYOD (the explosion of mobile devices allowed to connect to the corporate network); and the increase in smartphone use in developing countries. So, here we are three years later and the American Registry for Internet Numbers is still doling out IPv4 addresses in the United States and Canada. Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Whatever Happened To the IPv4 Address Crisis?

Comments Filter:
  • NAT (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:26AM (#46266871)
    While phones use Internet connectivity, they usually connect through the carrier infrastructure which may only allocate a few (or even 1) IPv4 addresses, thanks to NAT.
    • Re:NAT (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:31AM (#46266925) Homepage

      Yup. NAT isn't really too troublesome on phones since they rarely run servers, are usually connecting to cloud-based services, and they move around so much that they'd probably have an IP change every 10 minutes if you handled them like a traditional routable IP.

      If I were using cellular service as my actual home ISP it would drive me nuts, though.

      IPv6 is needed more than it ever was. We just haven't reached the end of v4 yet.

      • Re:NAT (Score:5, Funny)

        by aurizon ( 122550 ) <bill.jackson@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:45AM (#46267055)

        We need to get the ground work done so that IPv8 can be introduced smoothly - the galaxy demands to be properly served...

      • Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert&slashdot,firenzee,com> on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:32PM (#46267581) Homepage

        This is far more troublesome for people who *do* run servers...
        If you are getting abusive users from a mobile ISP, how do you ban those users?
        Block the IP and you block every customer of that isp.

        • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

          well since you usually have to pay money anyways to get a static IP the users are unlikely to have static ip's anyhow even on their landline connections...

          • Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)

            by mjr167 ( 2477430 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:04PM (#46267923)
            Practically speaking, the IP address doesn't change unless you reboot the modem or manually do a release/renew.
            • Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)

              by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:10PM (#46267983)

              depending on the provider you don't get a new ip address when do those things either. from my limited experiments with Comcast and Time Warner they give the same IP address to the same Mac address every time.

              I replaced a router on both and got new ip addresses. however when i cloned the mac address from the old routers to the new I got the old ip addresses.

              Now this is really limited. 4 routers on two service providers. so take it with a grain of salt and a shot of tequila .

              • DHCP servers typically try to give clients their old IP addresses based on MAC address. This usually works until there is a huge demand for reservations, and the pool of free addresses runs out. This is uncommon in broadband networks where the number of clients is relatively static, and clients are rarely restarted.
          • Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)

            by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:08PM (#46267961)

            Most ISPs assign staticish addresses. They are technically dynamic, but change very infrequently - in my case, no more than once or twice a year, baring a change of modem or network card.

      • Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)

        by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:06PM (#46267947) Homepage Journal

        NAT isn't really too troublesome on phones since they rarely run servers, are usually connecting to cloud-based services

        Any sort of peer-to-peer communication is problematic, if NAT is involved. Lots of the communication you want to do on phones is peer-to-peer in its nature, but actually implementations have often chosen inferior cloud based implementations, simply to work around NAT. Why else would you involve a cloud service, when what you really want to do is to move some data from one phone to another?

        Additionally, even communication with cloud based services is problematic when NAT is involved.

        Connecting to a cloud service in order to get a notification, once there is a new email or a new chat message is something you often want to do on a phone. But you cannot do that through a NAT, unless you a prepared to send a constant stream of packets to keep a connection tracking entry alive. Now your phone has to wake up every so often just to send another keepalive packet through the NAT. This consumes battery power, it also consumes bandwidth and if everybody does it, it consumes entries on the NAT.

        If the NAT does run out of entries for connections, it will have to lower the lifetime of connections. That will lead to applications sending keepalives more frequently, and we are back in the same situation as before, only wasting more battery power and bandwidth.

        and they move around so much that they'd probably have an IP change every 10 minutes if you handled them like a traditional routable IP.

        NAT does not solve that problem, it actually makes it worse. You still have to keep track of the local IP you assigned to the phone if it is behind a NAT. The tracking of the IP address is not any harder just because it is a public address. But by introducing a CGN you introduce the requirement that all the traffic from the phone gets routed through that CGN even as the phone is moving. If you did not have the NAT layer, you only have the challenge of routing packets to the phone as it is moving, there is no need to get it through one particular NAT as well.

      • One of our remote offices was connected via cellular. It was actually very usable and far more stable than you might guess. It's in a small town in Arkansas that didn't have access to anything but dialup. We couldn't even get a T1 without a huge build cost. Fortunately there were only 4 people there that needed access too. We just plugged a USB hotspot into a Cradlepoint router and it worked very well. We couldn't get a static IP but DynDNS + LogMeIn was good enough for what we needed there.

        The mom &
    • Re:NAT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:35PM (#46267603) Journal

      There are 2 dimensions to the IPv4 problem - the user end; and the server end. Except for newly formed companies looking to provide internet access to their users through a proxy server; the individual users are largely oblivious to the crisis; as you rightly mentioned.

      But try hosting your own server (non-cloud provider) - your ISP forces you to acquire IPv6; and you have to jump through hoops to make it smoothly accessible over VPNs and the general inernet.

  • by neilo_1701D ( 2765337 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:29AM (#46266903)

    When that particular comment was made, the ubiquity of the home router dolling out DHCP addresses probably wasn't considered. Nowadays, you only need one IP address for your home and let the router sort it out.

    There's still a problem, but people seem to prefer to adapt and come up with (very) clever workarounds rather than get some new solution shoved down their throat that renders existing equipment obsolete for no good reason.

    • by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:40AM (#46267011) Homepage

      How does it even work any other way?

      Are you/the article saying that it is possible to have a single connection to your ISP, but for every computer, fridge, toaster, TV, etc. to have its own global IP address?

      Your ISP can give you a block of dynamic/static IP addresses, which your router assigns instead of 192.168.1.X?

      • by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:57AM (#46267187)

        Are you/the article saying that it is possible to have a single connection to your ISP, but for every computer, fridge, toaster, TV, etc. to have its own global IP address?

        Yes, that is exactly how IPv6 is supposed to work.

        Your ISP can give you a block of dynamic/static IP addresses, which your router assigns instead of 192.168.1.X?

        Possibly, but not necessarily even that. You could be set up to simply automatically generate IPv6 addresses from your MACs, and the ISP doesn't even explicitly grant you an address block.

        • by smash ( 1351 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:38PM (#46267635) Homepage Journal
          This is exactly how IP (irrespective of version) is supposed to work... NAT is an ugly hack that breaks shit.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Are you/the article saying that it is possible to have a single connection to your ISP, but for every computer, fridge, toaster, TV, etc. to have its own global IP address?

          Yes, that is exactly how IPv6 is supposed to work.

          And this is where fundamental assumption #1 of IPv6 falls flat. Even with IPv6, every endpoint will not be reachable.

          This is the age of firewalls and all that (and even NAT provides a very basic level of firewalling). There's no guarantee that despite an endpoint having a publicly availabl

          • by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:19PM (#46268099) Homepage Journal

            Which means everything still breaks just as if NAT was present.

            That is not correct. A properly configured firewall does not cause nearly the same level of breakage as a NAT does.

            And finally, the biggest hurdle for IPv6 is NAT.

            That is true. NAT is hurting IPv6 deployment in many ways. Had NAT never been invented, we could all have been running IPv6 years ago, and the transition would have gone smoother. For example a large part of the difficulties in using IPv6 through tunnels is entirely due to the IPv4 connections being infested with NATs.

            With IPv6, you lose this handy feature - your ISP decides to change your prefix?

            With IPv6 there are enough addresses, that this should happen very rarely.

            Well, damn, they haven't done that in 5 years and now everything has been hardcoded with the old prefix in it - all your internal services used it.

            Then use DNS and/or RFC 4193.

      • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:22PM (#46267455)

        As it stands, your carier does NAT themselves and gives your router one IP address, typically in the address space. Your home router then does another layouer of NAT, and gives internal devices their own IP address range in the 1902.168.1.0/16 address space. The advantagie is that one can support a _tremendous_ backend infrastructure without public IP addresses. This is also a tremendous security advantage: it reduces the exposed attack surface for script kiddies and casual network scanners to attack your home devices, they have to successfully gain control of the router or another device inside your network to pass along their attack.

        The disadvantage, which dismays some people, is that NAT channels _publication_ of services through those NAT enabled routers or through externally hosted web space. It effectively makes the allocation of IP addresses and ports for exposed services require more thought, and allows easier throttling or monitoring of traffic at those NAT routers. I've found it to be a tremendous security and network management improvement: it makes firewall and routing design _much_ more stable and helps prevent people from running dangerous, unauthorized services from office networks, such as running public NFS servers without telling anyone aware of the security implications.

        • by hjf ( 703092 )

          (proper) CGNAT uses, so it doesn't collide with RFC1918 reserved addresses. See: RFC6598.

        • by znark ( 77857 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:27PM (#46268177) Homepage

          As it stands, your carier does NAT themselves and gives your router one IP address, typically in the address space. Your home router then does another layouer of NAT, and gives internal devices their own IP address range in the 1902.168.1.0/16 address space.

          Not where I live, and that sounds quite limiting! Thank ${DEITY}, ISPs here in Finland assign their customers genuine public IPv4 addresses, usually via DHCP. Typically, you can even get several of them – the maximum on a consumer connection could be something like 5. (I’m using 2 right now.) Only something like the port 25 (SMTP) is blocked for inbound connections so you’re free to run a personal web server, SSH box, VPN to your home network, etc.

          Finnish cellular carriers – as opposed to the actual fiber/copper/cable ISPs – have a different practice, though: they will usually NAT the 3G/4G customers by default, which is quite understandable, as you generally do not want inbound connections to a cellphone. Still, at least my carrier (Saunalahti) lets advanced customers choose a different APN which will give a public IPv4 address even for a 3G modem or a cellphone, which is quite nice and handy as well for some situations.

        • Please stop arguing that NAT gives you a security advantage. NAT in and of itself does not provide any additional security. The advantage is simply that of a stateful firewall, which is typically what is used to provide NAT -- except you can't really configure it. If you want security, run a stateful firewall and manage your services correctly at that firewall. NAT is lazy, NAT is sloppy, and NAT doesn't allow you to prevent users from connecting to remote services you don't want them to.

      • by AdamHaun ( 43173 )

        Your ISP can give you a block of dynamic/static IP addresses, which your router assigns instead of 192.168.1.X?

        That's how the internet works to begin with, and it used to be the norm for IPv4 networks. A lot of large networks still do it that way -- the computer I'm on at work has a globally unique IP address. You can still get a block of static IPs if you buy a business-class connection. That used to be almost the definition of a business connection, back when more people ran their own servers instead of using hosting services. IP addresses cost money [], so ISPs try to have as few as possible. NAT came about when peo

  • CGN, perhaps? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:31AM (#46266931) Homepage
    Just a guess, but maybe widespread adoption of Carrier Grade NAT [] might have given IPv4 a bit of a longer shelf life. It's either that or the kind of fun and games that I once read that Hutchison (Orange) was doing on their mobile network, with no less than seven separate instances of the 10/8 network being juggled around at once.

    Still, even ARIN is now starting to tighten the screws on the size of netblocks they are assigning out, so I suspect providers are being a lot more careful about how they subnet and assign out IP addresses than they used to be. I suspect that just moving stuff like DB servers and other backend infrastructure onto private IP space instead of just dumping them in the DMZ for convenience has helped a bit too, not too mention being a better security practice.
  • Even through all addresses have been given out, there's still so much slack to shuffle things around in the IPv4 space. We will still go another good 10 years before moving into IPv6 in a large scale.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:32AM (#46266939)

    It's only a crisis if it affects you. (sic)

    That's basically what is happening, a giant stand off between the access networks and the hosting providers looking who will blink first.

    From then end user perspective, you should see what happens to Skype and games when both end-users are behind a double NAT, it's hilarious. But most people seem to cope just fine.

    For the hosting providers then fun really starts when you can't get a public IPv4 for your new webserver, that'll be fun. There's no NAT workaround for that, some european hosting providers are already feeling the crunch in their IPv4 blocks, you can only host so many servers. So what can you do? Jack up the prices ofcourse, isn't the free market wonderful!

    If you are a business in the EMEA and you still want or need your own PI space for BGP, tough cookies, you can't get it anymore.

    • by C3ntaur ( 642283 ) <centaur AT netmagic DOT net> on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:17PM (#46267395) Journal

      For the hosting providers then fun really starts when you can't get a public IPv4 for your new webserver, that'll be fun. There's no NAT workaround for that, some european hosting providers are already feeling the crunch in their IPv4 blocks, you can only host so many servers. So what can you do? Jack up the prices ofcourse, isn't the free market wonderful!

      This. This is why IPv4 will stick around for decades to come. There is too much profit potential in it, and IPv6 costs too much money to implement.

      • by vanyel ( 28049 )

        Having implemented It does cost some time and effort, but it's not huge, particularly if you do it incrementally and dual stack. It's fear of change that's holding it back, not cost and effort, and as a result people are missing out on getting out from under that shackles that ipv4 puts around everything you do. But "the devil you know" rules in all too many cases.

    • For the hosting providers then fun really starts when you can't get a public IPv4 for your new webserver, that'll be fun. There's no NAT workaround for that, some european hosting providers are already feeling the crunch in their IPv4 blocks, you can only host so many servers. So what can you do? Jack up the prices ofcourse, isn't the free market wonderful!

      There is certainly a NAT-like workaround for lack of IPv4 for webservers. It's called a load-balancer. Since the domain name requested is in the HTTP hea

    • by Lanboy ( 261506 )

      Large corporate entities are also selling address space. Bought a class B for a Million last year. Not personally, but the corporate entity I represent.

      If the ipv6 standards group had made an incremental change to address address space and left the rest of the protocols, then things might be different. As it was they threw in a bunch of features that no one wanted, and no one needs. IPv6 is a rehash of the failed and unused OSI transport and intranetwork protocols, which were soundly rejected by the market.

  • by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:33AM (#46266943)


  • by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:36AM (#46266975) Homepage
    I guess enough people finally got around to reading it.
  • by Marrow ( 195242 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#46266991)

    and figured out they better find a better solution than ipv6. There is too much ipv4 only hardware out there to abandon it all. It would just be insane.

  • by pcjunky ( 517872 ) <> on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#46267001) Homepage

    While things have slowed down here the other regional IP registars have run out. APNIC and RIPE both have no IP addresses left. Arin has only about 1.4 /8's left.

  • "Hey Joe, what's your IP address?"
    "Oh, let me see... it's fe80:0:0:0:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf"

    Holy crap that's long. The second IP addresses become this difficult to exchange verbally, we're going to stop referring to them altogether.

    • by Sique ( 173459 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:49AM (#46267097) Homepage
      That was the point of having DNS in the first place. Four octets just weren't bad enough.
      • by gatkinso ( 15975 )

        I'll point out that the OP asked for an IP address, not a hostname.

        While indeed this is the problem DNS addresses, many development and internal networks are not running DNS for a variety of reasons.

        • by Sique ( 173459 )
          Most of the reasons being to lazy to roll out DNS for all IP addresses, even internal ones and keeping track of changes. As I said: IPv4-addresses were still memorizable, thus many people kept using them directly.
    • by Imagix ( 695350 )
      There's this really interesting service out there that converts from a human-friendly (well, friendlier anyway) form to the IP address. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called DNS. (and BTW, you just quoted a link-local IPv6 address... so the guy who wants to talk to Joe probably can't use it anyway...)
      • So my parents have to learn how to configure a DNS in order for me to troubleshoot their networking problems over the phone? :)

        On a more serious note, I don't see the possibility of getting non-techies to configure DNS entries for their computer.

    • by infogulch ( 1838658 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:52AM (#46267133)


      "Hey Joe, what's your IP address?"
      "I don't have one, I'm behind a NAT and firewall that I don't control."

      Of the two problems, I find yours the lesser of two evils.

    • by trparky ( 846769 )
      Actually that would be fe80::200:f8ff:fe21:67cf. You can drop the three zeros after fe80 and replace it with a double colon.
  • Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by AdamHaun ( 43173 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:47AM (#46267081) Journal

    Unsurprisingly, address exhaustion still going on. APNIC and RIPE are down to their last /8 and are now handing out addresses as slowly as they can. ARIN and LACNIC will reach their last /8 this year. AFRINIC won't run out for years, so I suspect their new infrastructure will be built on IPv6. Here's the relevant data. []

    There's a finite number of addresses, guys. They're not going to magically stop running out.

  • by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:47AM (#46267083) Homepage Journal
    Less than two months after RIPE introduced rationing of IPv4 addresses, I one day found my internet connectivity to be totally broken. Turns out the ISP had turned on NAT in my modem (without telling me about it beforehand). They did have a self service page where I could turn NAT off again and get functional internet connectivity again. However some of my devices no longer received any reply from the DHCP server.

    I called their support, who said the lack of reply from their DHCP server was due to the network interface on my computer being defective (which was obviously a lie). When I pointed out that their conclusion was directly contradicting the symptoms I had already explained them about, they just hanged up.

    Calling their support one more time, I was able to get to a supporter who knew what was going on, and didn't just invent a lie. It turns out they had run out of IPv4 addresses, and were now enforcing a maximum of two devices online per customer regardless of what limit had been in effect previously.

    A few days later I called them again asking for native IPv6, which I considered only fair, given that they had taken away some of the IPv4 addresses, which I were using. They promised me native IPv6 before the end of the year. That was in 2012, they still haven't delivered.

    Other ISPs are putting all new customers behind CGN unless they pay an extra fee for a static IP address. You'd think they'd give you native IPv6 along with that. But alas, according to the majority of ISPs, there is no shortage of IPv4 addresses in this country, so nobody needs IPv6. And since nobody is buying IPv6 connectivity, the ISPs will not offer it (completely ignoring the fact, that the reason nobody is buying IPv6 connectivity is that the ISPs themselves aren't offering it in the first place).

    From what I am told, native IPv6 plus CGN for IPv4 is already fairly common in Germany, but that's not enough to make me want to move across the border. I have yet to hear about ISPs putting customers who previously had a public IPv4 address behind NAT, but I would not be surprised if it happened.
  • Google's statistics of IPv6 usage [] show a seemingly exponential increase, which is now up to 3%. It could be 10%, 20%, or 50% in 10 years' time. Countries like mine (the UK) need to wake the fuck up and start having major ISPs offer IPv6. It really sucks that so few do.

  • by weave ( 48069 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:49AM (#46267101) Journal

    Comcast brags ( that they are the largest ISP that supports ipv6. Oh wow, cool. I have a new modem that supports it as well as a home router.

    So I go to figure out how to do it and find that they are only assigning /128s (single IPs) to only certain markets.

    Who has a single computer hooked up to the Internet at home and nothing else?

    No wonder it's not going anywhere. Even early-adopters can't get on easily without tunneling or other hack.

    • Re:Comcast and ipv6 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Aqualung812 ( 959532 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:06PM (#46267265)

      I'm on Comcast, and I'm getting a /60 from them.

      Your WAN interface might be on a /128, and that is fine. You need to make sure your gear is telling Comcast what size of prefix you want delegated to your router.

      Of course, this varies by market, so it might really not be there yet, but read up on prefix delegation & make sure you've got your end setup correctly: []

      Also, don't trust the tech support with this. They are clueless. According to them, IPv6 isn't available in my market.

  • Dear Mother of the First Transistor and all that's holy, would it be too much to write a summary that actually summarizes -- "Remember the IPv4 crisis? It's still a problem, and we're going to run into trouble sometime this year." It's only a matter of time before tabloid-grade link baiting pervades every area of writing -- imagine the joy of reading summaries of scientific articles that conclude with, "Is there a statistically significant likelihood that your wife secretly prefers canoodling with carpenter
    • by epine ( 68316 )

      would it be too much to write a summary that actually summarizes

      I've been complaining about this regularly in recent months. Far bigger issue than beta that so much content isn't nerdworthy.

  • The IPv4 crisis was around when I got into IT back in the early 90s. So thats...over 20 years? That can't be right because, counting forward from...D'oh!

    Get off my lawn!

  • by exabrial ( 818005 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:53AM (#46267143)
    Truth is NAT works just fine for the vast majority of cases, and makes a layered (IE not-eggs-all-in-one-basket) approach to security much simpler.

    The real problem is routing table size with BGP. As we continue to divide the internet into smaller routable blocks, this is requiring an exponential amount of memory in BGP routers. Currently, the global BGP table requires around 256mb of RAM. IPv6 makes this problem 4 times worse.

    IPv6 is a failure, we don't actually _need_ everything to have a publicly routable address. There were only two real problems with IPv4: wasted space on legacy headers nobody uses, and NAT traversal. IETF thumbed their noses as NAT (not-invented-here syndrome) and instead of solving real problems using a pave-the-cowpaths-approach, they opted to design something that nobody has a real use for.

    Anyway, I'm hoping a set of brilliant engineers comes forward to invent IPv5, where we still use 32 bit public address to be backward compatible with today's routing equipment, but uses some brilliant hack re-using unused IPv4 headers to allow direct address through a NAT.

    Flame away.
    • by Typical Slashdotter ( 2848579 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:09PM (#46267291)
      IPv6 is designed with such a large address space specifically to make BGP tables smaller. One of the factors causing IPv4 tables to grow is that, since addresses are scarce, people are getting clever with how they allocate blocks, divvying things up very finely so as not to waste. Since BGP entries are by block, this creates many blocks that need routing. The IPv6 designers went with 128 bits of address not because they think they need room for 2^128 hosts, but because there will be enough room to divide blocks hierarchically and logically, "wasting" addresses all along the way. This will allow global routing tables to more accurately reflect the structure there is between ISPs, shrinking their size.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I sat in on a router design meeting for IPv6. It took me 20 minutes to stop laughing when I heard them seriously say that it was acceptable for the system to crash if it encountered a router loop, because users will "just be careful and that won't happen". Then I took the copy of the presentation and my notes to my stock analyst and pointed out "these people ar bozos, do not invest in them or trust anyone who has invested in them". I didn't make money, but it helped keep me from *losing* a good chunk of mon

  • by Anonymous Coward

    At work we wanted to set up some VPNs with a cloud provider but our ISP doesn't want to give us the IPs so we had to forgo the VPN and instead lease a line for $5000 a month + we'll end up with dev and production envirnments that don't match which will probably hit us as some downtime in the future (we're just using OpenVPN in dev which doesn't require an IPv4).

    So in the case of my team of eight workers the IPv4 crisis is costing $5000/mo + countless meetings and endless paperwork. Not a showstopper, but en

  • What happened? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GT66 ( 2574287 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @11:55AM (#46267157)
    The human tendency for hyperbole happened. It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics. We just love the drama of a crisis. Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction. Talk about a drama queen. [br] [br] So, as it turned out, despite seemingly needing more than billions of IP addresses and IPv4 only supplying a few billion in totality, what the world really needed was just a few million IPv4 addresses that could provide "outside" initiated connectivity into the host. ie, servers. For all the rest, outbound connectivity could be supplied by some smaller proportion of addresses using NAT and clever work around services and many systems required even less than that needing only local area connectivity and allowing IPv4 to be reused over and over. [br] [br] So, the need for IPv6 RIGHT NOW OR THE END WILL CONSUME US! was driven largely by hyperbole and the reality that IPv4 can and will continue to serve our purpose is tempered by the other human traits of conservation and ingenuity. [br] Yes, the transition to IPv6 is inevitable and necessary however, the consumption of IPv4 will not be no more a sudden catastrophic event event any more than John Kerry's belief that climate change is a weapon of mass destruction. It just never happens that way.
    • Re:What happened? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zero__Kelvin ( 151819 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:14PM (#46268047) Homepage

      ". It was the same for Y2k,"

      I'm glad you brought this up, as it is an excellent parallel. The Y2K crisis was real just as the IPv4 shortage was real. In both cases people took pro-active steps to head off disaster. Now, because those proactive steps averted the disaster all those who had no hand in it and didn't understand it proclaim: See! It was never an issue! It didn't happen!. No shit sherlock; it didn't happen because people saw the potential for disaster and took steps to avoid it.

    • Re:What happened? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:49PM (#46268455)

      The human tendency for hyperbole happened.

      Or more accurately "does not effect me"

      It was the same for Y2k, is the same for just about every winter season snow storm, and is ceaseless in our politics.

      In the IPv6 case the projections for run out have been right on the money. The only people screaming "the world didn't end" are media people looking to whore hits to their sites. Addressing authorities and publicized events ( IPv6 Day) all included FAQs clarifying the end of the world does not happen at exhaustion.

      Just recently John Kerry referred to man-made global warming as weapon of mass destruction.

      I have a feeling if you were head of state for some dinky island nation in the middle of nowhere and you looked at the projections for sea level rise vs land area of your country effectively consumed or endangered by conditions (tides, storms) you would not be so quick to sound the hyperbole alarm.

      The same goes for small VM/hosting provider who runs out of IPs to assign to new customers... these things are a "big fucking deal" to them but for everyone else it is hyperbole or even beneficial. Climate change has winners and so does IPv4 exhaustion. CGN vendors, competitors who "planned ahead" hoarding more addresses than they were supposed to or those blessed with massive legacy allocations have market advantage with respect to IPv4 exhaustion the rest of us don't.

  • A lot of the lower /8 ranges [], that were assigned to companies and organizations(some of them that don't exist anymore) got reused to make ipv4 last a little longer. They will stil

    Also don't help a lot that companies and ISPs may still be deploying hardware/software that is not ipv6 capable, replacing legacy systems is one the things that slows down adoption.

  • by trparky ( 846769 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:05PM (#46267251) Homepage
    The United States has enough IP addresses in our pool to carry us through to the end of say... 2018. If current growth of the Internet continues we will still have enough IP addresses in our pool, we'll just have to knock a year or two off that projection. Say, may 2017 or half way through 2016. The United States has more than enough IP addresses to keep us going for some time.

    Europe and other parts of the world is a totally different story. When the Internet was created and we started handing out the IP addresses we were quite stingy when giving them to other parts of the world. The United States is one of the biggest hoarders of IP addresses in the IPv4 world while Europe and the rest of the world got relatively few IP addresses with compared to how many the US holds. There's where we are seeing the problem.

    Europe has the issue, Europe has no choice in the matter; they have to move to IPv6 or their side of the Internet is pretty much crippled. So unless we all implement 6to4 to allow United States Internet users to connect to European web site (that's fugly) or finally get on the bandwagon in converting to IPv6 in the US, there will eventually be two Internets; a US and a European Internet with IPv4 and IPv6 being the limiting factor.
  • by TyFoN ( 12980 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:13PM (#46267347)

    My fiber ISP provides 6rd connectivity with a /62 prefix address space, and will bump it to /54 when they implement dual-stack on all systems.
    There are still legacy routers on the system apparently.

    However tomato on my rt-n66u handles the 6rd just fine.

    A lot of systems are on ipv6 already, and I think I have around 50/50 ipv6 and ipv4 traffic now. There is no real difference in use for a regular user. Even all the phones, tables and the chromecast use it without me having to do anything except connecting the router.

    I still have a regular fixed ip for ipv4, but all my devices are behind nat.

  • by Morgor ( 542294 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @12:18PM (#46267413) Homepage

    In short, it's just too early to tell. Just because the RIRs ran out of addresses, it doesn't mean that the LIRs have yet (the ISPs).

    Based on my experience as a network engineer at an ISP, the following is happening already:

    Small ISPs and ISPs that have not been in the business for a long time* have either run out or are on the verge of doing so. They are doing the following:

      * Purchasing legacy IPv4 addresses from enterprises with /16 networks from the old days where available.
      * Deploying CGN-like solutions for their end-customers if their end-customers are residential users.

    Larger ISPs and older ISPs with allocations from ye old pre-RIR days continue to hold addresses and are often able to free large quantities of addresses from old deployments. Mind you, a lot of public IPv4 space have been "wasted" on infrastructure addressing, and management of devices that were not even connected to the internet. Devices such as modems, DSLAMs, CPEs and similar.

    One could easily speculate that the business of ISPs will be severely affected in the future, as customers will go to the old providers that have plenty of v4-space available at the cost of newer players who followed the RIR regulations of only applying for the address space they needed based on relative short-term predictions.

    If you are a registered LIR you will see a flood of SPAM from so-called IP brokers who are trying to purchase unused IPv4 space in hope of selling this to LIRs in need. That market will probably become quite desperate in the coming years.

    Oh, and by the way, I see no evidence that IPv6 deployment is taking any noticeable speed.

    *) Long as in they were in the game when classfull allocations were made.

  • by ConfusedVorlon ( 657247 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:33PM (#46268269) Homepage

    After the technological meltdowns consistently failed to appear, IPv4 was finally replaced when IPv7 was adopted globally in the year 2017 as a result of a world trade agreement.

    The incongruous IPv7 clause was widely seen as the result of an unlikely alliance between the RIAA, MPAA and various repressive regimes such as China, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom.

    Frustrated by the inability to trace internet usage to a single user via IPv4, these organisations lobbied for IPv7 to be adopted so that individual phones and computers could be mapped permanently to a single device and user. Unlike IPv6, IPv7 includes a direct mapping to the mac address of a device and the user's global internet ID, so that (in theory at least), all downloads can be linked to a specific person.

    Although the EFF and various other organisations campaigned vigorously against IPv7, the arguments around catching terrorists and preventing pedophilia prevailed.

  • by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @03:01PM (#46269223) Homepage Journal

    For anybody paying any attention over the past few years, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

    The IANA ran out of IPv4 address space available for doling out to the Regional Internet Registries (of which there are six) three years ago. APNIC (Asia Pacific) and RIPE NCC (Europe) went below a single /8 three and two years ago respectively. The IPv4 address exhaustion has already begun.

    ARIN (North America), however, has 82 /8s. If you consider that there are only 221 /8s in total (the IANA keeps 35 for reserved use), this means that ARIN has 37% of all usable Internet addresses assigned to it, for roughly 8% of the worlds population. More than a third of all possible addresses for less than a tenth of the worlds population.

    Even still, ARIN now only has about 1.3 /8s free. Projections have them running out next year. They've always been estimated to be one of the last RIRs to run out (with AfriNIC being last, as they still have just over 3 of their nearly 13 /8s free) due in part to the huge number of /8s already in use in North America (way out of proportion to the population of the continent).

    I feel really ashamed every time this topic comes up on /. at the complete and rampant ignorance of the issues surrounding IPv4 and IPv6. We will run out of IPv4 address space, but address space is hardly the only problem with IPv4. The bigger problem is ROUTABILITY -- the IPv4 routing tables have become seriously unweildly, they are getting progressively worse (in part due to InterRIR transfers of address blocks now that Europe and Asia have run out of addresses), and they continue to need more and more compute power thrown at the problem just to keep up. The number of BGP forwarding entries has doubled from roughly 250k to nearly 500k in just the last six years. The algorithms used for determining routes in IPv4 are complex. The computability is difficult, and it's slowing down the Internet today.

    IPv6 solves a lot of the routing problems inherent in IPv4, making routability a lot easier to compute. IPv6 packets have a simpler header, routers don't need to provide fragmentation services, and there is no header checksum. IPv6 also avoids the routing anomalies present in IPv4 due to things such as the switch to CIDR. We know a heck of a lot more about packet routing now than we did in the 60s when IPv4 was first defined, and these improvements are available in IPv6.

    This is why I cringe whenever I see a post in an IPv6 address exhaustion related /. story complaining about a lack of backwards compatibility in IPv6, or anytime anyone says that NAT is good enough for everybody. As the address space fragments even further, and historic /8s and /16s are broken up into ever smaller units which are then distributed to diverse geographies, the routing table in IPv4 is going to continue to blow up, becoming ever uglier -- it simply wasn't designed to scale in the manner in which we're using it. IPv6 brings sanity to global routing again, in a way that no backward-compatible solution could achieve.

    The IANA is out of addresses. RIPE and APNIC are virtually out of addresses (with only enough reserved to aid in IPv4 - IPv6 tunnelling and translation services). ARIN is down to less than 1.5 /8s, and survives purely on the fact that it has a disproportionate number of /8s compared to the population it serves. And worst of all, IPv4 routing is an absolute mess that requires a ton of processing power and compute time to maintain. Remember these things before you post something silly about being pro-NAT, pro-some-untested-IPv4-address-extension-proposal, complaining about backward compatibility, or how people have been predicting IPv4 exhaustion for the last 25 years (just because you see the train coming towards you way off in the distance does

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson