1420627
story
miladus writes
"According to a story at Zdnet,
Asian countries are running out of IP addresses. China, for example,
was assigned 22 million IP addresses (for a population of 1.3 billion)
under IPv4. The US owns 70 percent of current IP addresses. Perhaps IPv6 will solve the problem."
IPv6 soon? (Score:4, Funny)
This again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This again? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This again? (Score:5, Insightful)
NAT still useful (Score:3, Insightful)
IPv6? (Score:2)
Re:IPv6? (Score:4, Funny)
I can just see in the far far future, when there will be sentient computer programs, they will refer to China as "the anti-matter land"...
"Mother sentient program: In the anti-matter land, there is someone with the exact same IP address as yours son...
Child sentient program: Woooww..."
Re:IPv6? Yes because NAT is too limited (Score:5, Informative)
If you have only one public adresse you have a single port for each services. Despite the fact that most services can extended by virtual one this is not the case for all of them (think SSH, or IPSec for example) and this require a high degre of coordination between the entity.
So IPv6 could be the cheapest way to solve the problem. And this could provids a good boost to the network market...
Re:IPv6? Yes because NAT is too limited (Score:3, Funny)
If your company thinks NAT is too limited, then it should have gotten, or be getting, its own IPv6 assignment. Cite the address. If it's a case of your management not understanding the problem and the solution, give me your CEO's home phone number and I'll given him a call at 3AM and whisper into his ear "IPv6 ... IPv6 ... you want IPv6 ... IPv6 will make your network better, faster, cheaper ... IPv6 ... do IPv6 now".
Re:IPv6? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, absolutely wrong.
While all computers on the same NAT can directly connect to others, it cannot do so easily to others on another NAT, or other 'real' IP addresses. This effectively prevents anyone from running any server that can serve to networks outside the NAT, unless some ports are designated at the NAT router level specificly for that particular server. I don't see ISP's or network admins designating specific port ranges for every computer, as it takes work, and it could conflict with applications that uses specific port ranges (such as file transfers on MSN used by illiterate users who can't use ftp).
I would say using NAT to solve this problem is all but a cheap bandage that will cost more in the long run. IPv6 must be implemented soon to ensure the continue growth of the Internet.
Re:IPv6? (Score:4, Interesting)
mail.nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on port 80 go to 10.10.10.3:80
mail.nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on 25 goes to 10.10.10.3:25
nths.nvusd.k12.ca.us request on port 80 goes to 10.10.10.2
It was probably loads of fun to manually set this up, but it works
Corporations are at fault? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:5, Interesting)
$ host 18.[231-238].0.1
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting to see the first five: IANA, Xerox, Apple, IBM, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
"Which one of these things is not like the other one?"... or "Which one of these really doesn't need 32 Million IP addresses". [unic
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Informative)
General Electric Company - Massive production lines
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. - They (not Gore) invented the 'Net
Army Information Systems Center - um, the **ARMY**
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. - again
IBM - (my employer) HUGE MANUFACT
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no reason why these devices should have externally-visible IP addresses (and a lot of good reasons why they shouldn't). if you think about it. Imagine what would happen if you could hack into the welding robots on Ford's assembly lines, or GE's, or "War Games" the AISC., DoD, etc.
That's the reason for 10.n.n.n, 192.n.n.n, etc. Private networks. :-)
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. It's for people who can't or don't want to get real IPs.
There are a lot of reasons why so-called private devices would want a real IP address. First and foremost is so that they can send out requests to the Internet and the receiver of requests will know where to send the response. Firewall all you want, but two-way communication is still important.
NAT is a hack.
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
They wouldn't, but they might want that welding robot to be able to communicate with a supplier's server. While you could do this with NAT and other such hacks, why not do it the proper way with a real IP address?
Re:IANA (Score:3, Informative)
But it does work with IANAPDN -Public Data Network, etc. Hadn't noticed that.
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Interesting)
One company that I've worked with uses a routable
What's super annoying is that we have some permanent connectivity to them and they give out different IPs depending on the source of the DNS query. We're not fully integrated with them, so it makes for loads of fun trying to do resolution correctly.
I think it's a waste of addresses. Give back the public-facing
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:3, Informative)
Class A and B owners shouldn't have to move to 'private' (RFC1918) address space. 1918 space used in a one-to-many NAT is a hack that breaks end-to-end. IPv6 maintains e2e and is preferable. I'm sitting on a huge network numbered out of RFC1918 right now, which is a pain in the balls.
And while I'm soapboxing, although
Re:Corporations are at fault? (Score:4, Interesting)
32 bits ought to be enough (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps this could signal a limit on the amount of spam coming from China?
time to give split up some class A's ? (Score:5, Insightful)
That, or one heck of a NAT is needed.
Get with the times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:time to give split up some class A's ? (Score:5, Funny)
Non-routable addresses (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder why they don't use the non-routable address spaces and NAT.
Let's also remember (since I detected some trolling in the article) that Asia was a backwater for the Internet 20 years ago when address blocks started to be doled out, so naturally the U.S. and to a lesser extent Europe got the bulk of the blocks.
They could always NAT (Score:3, Interesting)
This only means (Score:5, Insightful)
Asia is one of the primary adopters of IPv6 (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I can tell you that in one of my many Unix classes when we were learning how to configure IPv6 the instructor mentioned that the reason why IPv6 had been added by default to our new versions of Unix was that we were getting a tremendous amount of pressure from our customers overseas, primarily in Asian markets, who were unable to get IPv4 address blocks from their ISPs, and were therefore deploying IPv6 exclusively.
I believe currently a lot of Asia is running IPv6 with IPv4 gateways at main NAPs.
-obdisclaimer, the opinions expressed are not those of my employer.
Asia (Score:3, Funny)
IPv6 adoption (Score:4, Insightful)
So, maybe it will be the Asian countries that finally push IPv6 toward being adopted. OTOH, in countries like China, maybe the government would be happier if 1+ billion people were forced behind NAT and a handful of filtering proxies due to lack of free addresses. =p
Re:IPv6 adoption (Score:4, Informative)
I keep banging the IPv6 drum, but people are naturally lazy, and don't want to change unless they have to. It explains the Microsoft/Linux thing too - people can't be bothered to try it, as MS works, to a fashion.
Unfortunately, this lack of IPv6 adoption is due to Microsoft. As 90% of the online-population can't use it, the people running the services can't be bothered to support it. And while there aren't any decent services on IPv6, the impetus to upgrade it is low.
Windows XP users: ipv6 install
RedHat: http://gk.umtstrial.co.uk/~calum/ipv6-intro/ [umtstrial.co.uk]
I think it can be all summed up by asking: Why don't you make all the sites you administer IPv6 only? Because then most of your audience wouldn't be able to see it.
Re:IPv6 adoption (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's more due to the monumentally stupid design decision of not making IPv4 addresses a strict subset of IPv6 addresses, with the result that you have to have tunnels etc to communicate between an IPv6 host or client and an IPv4 host or client.
Re:IPv6 adoption (Score:4, Insightful)
ISPs really don't want to support IPv6 because then they can't charge for additional IPs or blocks of IPs. They also can't force you not to have your own reverse DNS (as ALL the ISPs I have ever used have denied me).
I am currently using Comcast cable. I have an IPv6 address space through he.net. I have my own reverse DNS and I can actually show off my leet vanity hosts on IRC.
Win9x doesn't support IPv6 except through a PAYFOR version of Winsock (what home user is going to do that and when is MS going to add support, yeah, never.)
So if Win9x isn't supported, ISPs don't want it supported, home networking devices aren't going to support it (most home routers just drop the packets, I had to go back to using Linux as my NAT in order to enable IPv6), how is it going to get adopted?
Re:IPv6 adoption (Score:4, Informative)
If the world switched tomorrow, linux users would probably be the first ones up and running.
Wrong. Linux is nowhere near as IPv6-friendly as the *BSDs. To enable IPv6 in FreeBSD, for example, put 'ipv6_enable="YES"' in /etc/rc.conf and reboot. It'll autoconfig based on router advertisements, etc. You also have the option of enabling it at install time, so you can install over IPv6.
Each FreeBSD CD comes with a bunch prebuilt IPv6-ready apps, like apache, wget, etc -- apps that don't have native IPv6 support. Linux distributions are way behind when it comes to IPv6 adoption.
AEven Microsoft is on the bandwagon here. XP shipped with a "dev release" of their IPv6 code, and service pack 1 upgraded that to a production-ready release. To enable it, type "ipv6 install" at a command prompt, and you're set (no need to reboot!). The new 2003 server release comes with production quality IPv6 code as well.
Re:IPv6 adoption (Score:4, Informative)
This same config file also will set auto tunneling 6to4, forwarding, router setup, etc. It is about as easy as you can get.
The Redhat CDs have IPv6 enabled applications and many patched apps as well. It even installs ping6, traceroute6, etc. by default for goodness sakes.
There are some pieces of IPv6 Linux is missing, but don't make it seem like there isn't any support. Linux currently is missing 6over4 (different from 6to4), proper TOS bit handling, IPsec ESP transport and AH tunneling modes (AH transport works), full mobility support (supposedly almost there) and a couple other minor things.
china only needs one (Score:3, Funny)
China wants to filter the entire internet anyway, so they might as well only use one and point it at the Great Firewall of China.
I'm envisioning a billion little linksys router boxes glued together like bricks.
To put things inter perspective.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As does Microsoft, Cisco, and Apple. And I'm sure a lot of other big names.
Do all of those organizations use all of their IPs? Of course not. Relatively, probably more along the lines of "very few" or "negligable."
Sure it is an incentive for IPv6 implementation, but that is not the point. America is wasting a whole lot of IPs, and other parts of the world are running out.
No... (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they should limit them! (Score:5, Funny)
*ducks*
Japan can have some of our IP addresses... (Score:3, Funny)
Korea wasteful of IP addresses (Score:4, Funny)
Have they not heard of NAT?
IP Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Why hasn't IPv6 been adopted yet? Because it's expensive to switch, or a pain in the ass, or both, or people are stubborn, or....There's a million reasons, some better than others.
However, this is the sort of thing that you will see and will enable IPv6 to come into use. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? Well, we have the invention, now we just need the necessity. Running out of IP space? Sounds like a good necessity to me!
I'm not really worried about it. They'll either NAT it or they'll switch. If they switch (which I hope they do), it'll just encourage more of the world to do so. The market embraces the greater of a) what makes sense or b) what people are using. Evolution in action.
What he said... (Score:4, Insightful)
We all know that Asian countries should convert to IPv6. The better question is will they?
The answer is and overwhelming No. Most organizations will convert to NAT and release some of thier B classes. Others will switch to pre-existing, non-IP based, protocals with cheap interfaces like token ring(Think Novell and IPX). A handful of companies will setup a IPv6 router that will tunnel thier IPv4 traffic.
With the recession no one, especially Asian countries, has the money or time to convert.
Re:What he said... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is MS pushing the IPv6 compatibility of there new operating systems so hard in China?
Most new applicable hardware supports both IPv4 and 6
Don't underestimate the forward and long term planning of the Chinese.
NAT China (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that China has already firewalled the whole country, why don't they just NAT the whole country as well. Then, with a little cleverness, they can have the whole address space available to them alone.
30% of ipv4 space still unallocated (Score:5, Interesting)
Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are about six billion people on earth and each person's body consists of about 100 trillion cells. With 128 bit addressing each individual cell in every human being could have 100 trillion addresses. I believe that is on par with 1 address per molecule.
To put it another way we cannot, with current technology, use all of these addresses in any physical way. We can't even count them (literally). Suppose you have a machine that can do a trillion operations per second; then suppose that you have a billion such machines connected via the Internet and we ask each one to simply start counting through part of the address space. I believe it will take about 3 billion years for them to finish.
Pat Niemeyer
Author of Learning Java, O'Reilly & Associates and the BeanShell Java scripting language.
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... (Score:5, Interesting)
A necessary number: number of IPV6 addresses is 2**128 = 3.4E38.
Hmmm...lessee now, 6E9 people, 1E14 cells per person, that makes 6E23 cells. That's about 5E14 IPV6 addresses (five hundred trillion) per cell.
Per molecule? Let's assume an average person's mass is 60 kg, and that the average molecular weight of the human body is 25 (we are mostly water). That makes (60 * 1000) / 25 * 6.02E23 = 1.4E27 molecules per person. Total Earth population is then 6E9 * 1.4E27 = 8.4E36 molecules. Actually about 40 addresses per molecule.
My other favourite number is how many IPV6 addresses each square micron of the Earth's surface could have:
Earth's surface area in square microns = 4 pi (6378 * 1000 * 1000000) ** 2 = 5.1E26
3.4E38 / 5.1E26 = 6.6E11
A big number!
...laura
Re:Crazy size of the IPv6 address space... (Score:5, Funny)
Do some more math for us. You know how that turns us on!
Will IPV6 really solve this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell. The whole concept of the 'internet' by means of Tcp/IP is becoming quite dated. Why can't we combine the domain naming system with the IP system. What I would propose is to give each computer on a given domain an alphanumeric name (can contain any type of characters, and is decided by the owner of the domain - basically the same as todays concept of a 'hostname'. The domains, in turn, are managed by an independent organization in each country, followed by a country code. For example, a sample address would be
Joe Smith@Earthlink@USA (users within the USA can leave the @USA blank)
this eliminates the need for a domain naming system. takes a lot of power away from ICANN, would help to solve cybersquatting, and provides an infinite number of computer addresses (at no point should the 'name' need to be translated into a numeric address.
Computers behind a router should be able to have their own address as well (multiple servers on one address without the mess of port forwarding! With many home users now running their own web/music servers, this could be a godsend. For example:
MediaServer@JohnSmith@Earthlink@USA
Anybody should be able to get their domain, but those who do not have their own should simply share one with their ISP.
Unix geeks will probably balk at my radical ideas. but it needs to be done. the numbered IP system was concieved when the only computers on the 'net were run by the people who wrote the protocols,. Nowindays, computers are used by everybody (and their grandmothers!). and it made sense too, as bandwidth was very limited, and the programmers never intended for so many computers to be on the net, and cut corners to gain a small speed advantage (a few bits per packet - which was a lot back then. now, it's nothing). IPv6 simply continued to use (longer) archaic addresses - the problem still exists; we need another layer for domain names, and it's confusing as hell to non-geeky types)
I know my ideas seem radical, and will probably never be accepted... but I certainly would hope that we fix some of this. IPv6 isn't a solution - it's avoiding the problem.
(yes, this was somewhat inspired by Apple's rendevous, which addresses many of my concerns, but is by no means acceptable for a worldwide scale. On a side note, I believe that in order for rendevous to succeed, Apple needs to open it up, and allow M$ and Linux to interoperate with it.)
IPv6 + NATPT (Score:5, Interesting)
I did this a while ago at my house. My network actually had no IPv4 on it at all for a few weeks. I stopped because a couple of applications didn't support IPv6 and because the KAME NATPT I grafted into my FreeBSD source tree broke. I did it sort of as a proof of concept, and it succeeded sufficiently for me to propose that IPv6-only ISPs could easily use the technique.
You first set up a DNS proxy. totd (Trick or Treat Daemon) is a good one. Its job is to turn requests for AAAA records into requests for AAAA or A records, and to translate A record replies into AAAA records with a special prefix tacked on to the high bits. This will make it look as though the whole IPv4 Internet is hidden inside of a special /96 prefix.
Coincidently, you route that /96 prefix into a NATPT. IPv6 packets go in, IPv4 packets come out and are sent to the IPv4 Internet as if they had gone through a NAT.
Having done this, all of the ISPs customers would see a complete IPv6-only Inernet, but they could still interact with legacy (IPv4) sites as if they were IPv6. As more and more ISPs convert over, the IPv4 network will simply shrink slowly until it's gone, but in the meantime remain as accessable as it currently is.
With such a transition plan in place, the more people who move to IPv6, the emptier the IPv4 Internet experience becomes (however, folks trapped with IPv4 only providers could use techniques like 6to4 to escape the legacy network), which in turn becomes the driving force for transition.
So, Enough stories are turning up... When is /. going to support IPv6?
Re:IPv6 + NATPT (Score:5, Informative)
I love IPv6. I've played with it in the lab, and it's nifty! I'm in charge of restructuring my company's IP layout, guess what I suggested. Interestingly enough, when I proposed my plan on #ipv6 on freenode, the answer was a resounding DON'T DO IT. I have too much legacy stuff laying around that just won't support IPv6. Funny thing is, we are doing well on technology. I think of all the other businesses in worse shape than us, and I start to think. There is no way in hell IPv6 migration will happen any time soon. It's sometimes hard for us to see, especially when we do transparent stuff at home. What we forget is all the weird hardware that companies still depend on. There is some stuff that just won't go. We bought a Cisco router 3 years ago, its IOS won't support IPv6. That's only 3 years ago! Think of the legacy crap that was installed 10 years ago that still runs! NT servers that no one upgrades because they still work. We still have a Windows 3.1 machine that does its job, and in fact we broke trying to upgrade! Still works, it's easier to leave it alone. This kind of stuff happens everywhere, I've seen plenty of businesses with old hardware that's costly to upgrade and not broken.
IPv6 is great in the lab, and with brand new networks it's wonderful. Too much legacy hardware is going to keep it from being adopted on a large scale, and it won't happen anytime soon.
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
If, say, China just took a few class A spaces belonging to companies they don't care about in the US, and started using them internally, and even if a few other countries started agreeing with them, there would be no problem. As long as you don't go announcing routes to others in violation of how they want to do things, you are fine.
Nothing at the IANA forces anyone to use a certain address; they don't controll routing.. they just say who owns what, and those with the power to route defer to that to decide if they should do something or not.
Perhaps NAT is a solution (Score:3, Interesting)
True it sucks to be stuck behind firewalls but its better then nothing..
Greed is why we are short on addresses (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, plain and simple. Why else would IBM and Harvard each still have a couple of class A's or somesuch. Inertia? Sure they were around early in the days of arpanet or near.net or fsf.net, etc., but they don't need that many addresses. Really, both could get away with private addresses on approximately (I'm making this number up arbitrarily) 90& of their networks and probably more. MIT's up there for address space as well.
Someone is going to chime in with I'm clearly wrong, not in an enterprise environment, or some such. Well I own and run an ISP. We light office buildings, no one has a public IP (well, some have static NAT'd addresses) so we can get away with using a fraction of the IP addresses we normally need. We are living proof that the number of addresses required really is a fraction of what most organizations use.
No one likes losing addresses from their netblock assignment. However, there is a greater good here. The technological haves or early adopters have grossly disproportionate assignments. Large numbers of organizations switching over to RFC 1918 blocks and NATing would solve much of the address shortage. It would have a side benefit of additional security as well.
Re:Greed is why we are short on addresses (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you pay for a house, and spend time fixing that house up to be the way you want it, but if you are one person with a house and there are 10 homeless familys outside, using your logic, the fact you paid for and put your own work into that hosue for you is totally irrelevant, you should be forced to share?
I think this is more akin to White colonial powers in Africa than buying a house. Seems to me it time for some land redistribution.
Maybe if asia had something to contribute or help with back in the
Another sign of rock and roll excesses (Score:5, Funny)
What the hell is a prog-rock super-band [asiaworld.org] from the 80's doing with 22 million IP addresses?
Do they give them away to groupies with the backstage passes? Did entire blocks come free with the purchase of an lp? Were they traded for drugs and amps that go up to "11"?
This kind of rock n' roll excess is just so sad.
IPv6 is fundamentally broken ... wait for IPv7 (Score:5, Interesting)
IPv6 is fundamentally broken. The routing system for it does not scale to the same level the address space does. There are enough addresses for everyone to have their own portable /64 assignment (if not larger), but IPv6 can't handle the routing. The routing technology was not improved to scale up, even though it could have been done (although I don't know if it can be done with the way IPv6 was designed). But that's not a valid excuse for not having scalable routing as the IP layer structure could have been designed to allow for it. Wedging another layer in below IP for IPv6 might also work, but I think we would be better off waiting for a clean re-design, perhaps to be called IPv7 (and pushing them to hurry up with it).
If you don't believe me, just post a call for portable address assignments in IPv6 for everyone. You're get plenty of responses saying that the routing can't handle it. And that is the problem.
OK, a thought here (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I know, IPv6 is backward compatible, but let's not confuse the higher-ups with the facts. Just hear me out, 'k?
Microsoft enters the picture for one good reason: they are still the leading provider of operating systems. Most people still run Windows, and if indeed Microsoft is not IPv6 ready, you're going to alienate most of the users on the 'net.
OK, fine, blab all you want about the merits of Suzie Luser not being able to send emails full of run-on sentences, punctuation errors!!!!, and speling and errors grammatically to suzielusersmom13498572349657@aol.com, but consider this - ISPs such as AOL, Earthlink, Speakeasy, SBC, etc., etc., ad nauseam accordingly won't move to IPv6 when their primary customer base is still stuck in IPv4. There's just no need to make the expenditure right now because it doesn't affect them right now.
All of Pakistan was under ONE IP address (Score:4, Interesting)
Some time ago, PakNet was the biggest ISP in Pakistan serving hundereds of thousands under ONE ip address... interestingly using Linux kernel version 1.3.x. I also remember every user had a shell account from which we could cat the
And on this side, here in Toronto, Bell assigns a subnet of 8 IPs to every customer, including ones who need just one. 3 of those IPs are gateway, broadcast and 00 host, which leaves 5 IPs. two of them are assigned to the on-site router and off-site routers which are connected via DSL. Its one of the best examples of IP address waste, while the Chinese crave a personal, their very own IP address!
Theoretically all of the more than 4 billon IP addresses can be used, and it is VERY unlikely that the whole worlds population would be online. But the imbalance remains with the US holdin on to all the Oil and IP addresses. At least we can do something about one of them.
Try and get IPv6 support from your ISP (Score:3, Insightful)
I called up my T1 providers at work - MCI/UUNET and Sprint. Neither one offer production IPv6 services. Sprint was offering tunneling to a test-bed IPv6 network (on the 6BONE), but I've emailed the contact 3 times, no reply. Same with UUNET, I emailed the US-UUNET 6BONE contacts, no reply. I did actually get a reply from the South Africa UUNET contact (funny thing is I know him from Shadowfire IRC).
You simply cannot convert to IPv6 here in the US without using the private IPv6 ranges (akin to IPv4 RFC1918 address space). Why? Because only ISPs get IPv6 address space, and then they are to assign it to sub-ISPs and/or businesses.
Actually, I take that back, if you want to pay for a T1 all the way to one of Hurrican Electric's sites, you can get native IPv6:
ipv6.he.net [he.net].
I've been using he.net's IPv6 tunnels to them for about 6 months. Mainly though, I set up tunnels between my sites, so the traffic isn't really flowing to he.net's network. Think of it as a VPN, but with globally unique IPv6 addresses (which you can access from any host that can get on the IPv6 backbone or tunnel via IPv4 to an IPv6 backbone).
So, everyone, email or call your ISP and tell them you'd like to get IPv6 address space.
But here's a thought, why should they spend the time and money to upgrade their infrastructure when what they have "works just fine" right now? Are you willing to pay more per month for your own IPv6 address space? I currently pay $15 more per month for my 5 (technically 9) static IPs from SBC. I'd trade those statics for a single IPv4 address and a IPv6
Slashdot asleep at the wheel again.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:70% Seems fair (Score:5, Funny)
Re:70% Seems fair (Score:3, Funny)
Re:70% Seems fair (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. (Score:3, Funny)
I don't want to buy a goddamn bulldozer from Gung-Ho Province.
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As I see it... (Score:3, Insightful)
We know that we have a limited IP space. We know that IPv6 has better security features. We know that the US is very stingy on everything it does. Articles telling us all this wont change anything.
Not trying to diminish the fact that it needs to be fixed, but SOMEONE NEEDS TO START THE PROCESS AND FIX IT!
It will take big corpora
Re:As I see it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As I see it... (Score:3, Interesting)
And before you turn that one back on me: I am already dual-stack with NAT'd IPv4 and real IPv6 addresses for the hosts. So I am not holding things back. I love autoconfiguration by the way. No configuration on the hosts at all. IPv6 is so simple and easy compared to IPv4.
Re:As I see it... (Score:3, Funny)
Your parents must've had a sick sense of humor. If your real name is 'dacarr', is your brother's name 'daplane! daplane!'?
Max
Re:They should really swap to IPV6 then.. (Score:3, Funny)
Holden: Yeah.
Banky: Good. Over here, we have a male-affectionate, easy to get along with, non-political agenda lesbian. Down here, we have a man-hating, angry as fuck, agenda of rage, bitter dyke. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill
Re:2 solutions (Score:3, Insightful)
If we want to go by the countries that will most utilize IPs, then the USA and Japan probably top the list.
The bottom line is that IPv4 doesn't have enough addresses. We need to transition to IPv6. I suggest the all-powerful, all-loving, wonderful and joyous Chinese government, greatest in all the world bringing happiness and prosperity to all its people, concentrate on transitioning its backbones and systems to
Re:2 solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2 solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok... so define "fair". Sure, China has 1.1B people. How many of them have a computer? How many of them even have access to one? Not to mention the little niggling detail of the Great Firewall of China, which means that nearly every system is firewalled and NAT'd anyway.
India is a somewhat better scenario really, with nearly as many people but (on average) a much higher technology level. As I recall they have fewer IP addresses than China too.
But if you do it based on number of systems potentially needing an IP then the US will still be high up on the list... probably #1. Certainly not 70% of the IPs, but far more than the population would otherwise indicate.
The real question isn't whether or not to reallocate the existing IP structure (large portions of which have already been reallocated, which is convienently ignored), but whether we should move to IPv6 or more aggressive use of NAT and similar technologies.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
IPv6 will not run out of addresses - it will use 128-bit address space. This is 4 Billion times 4 Billion times 4 Billion times the size of the IPv4 address space. This works out to approximately 665,570,793,348,866,943,898,599 IP addresses per square meter of the surface of the planet Earth. Plenty of addresses for both your toaster and your waffle iron.
More here: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/INET-IPng
Are you sure? (Score:4, Funny)
Hum... till ppl start assigning one ip address per fridge, cooker, toaster, air cond., etc...
My fridge will have one for each drawer so i can have a shell script to check for lack of booze and order more online
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hum... till ppl start assigning one ip address per fridge, cooker, toaster, air cond., etc...
Umm... no.
2^128 addresses means that every one of the 7 billion people on the planet can have 48,611,766,702,991,209,066,196,372,490 addresses of their very own.
That's a lot of appliances.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
By my limited understanding of IPv6, this statement is rather false and misleading. Is the address space 128 bits? Yes, somewhat. But does that give a good account of the number of addresses available, NO. IPv6 has several different types of addresses, and the total number of actual addresses is far smaller that 2^128 would indicate.
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering the scale of this issue, it seems more like a homo erectus saying "No one need fire. Too hot and not portable, like Linux." Well, except for the Linux thing.
But seriously, I think the planet itself would be long gone before that many IP addresses was even close to being used. Until, of course, nanobots start self-replicating and join the Internet Continuum & start taking IPs (those dirty bastards).
Re:"Perhaps" IPV6 will solve the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if there were a billion trillion people on Earth, each person would still have 340 thousand trillion addresses. Assuming you have about 50 trillion cells in your body, this means you can assign nearly 7000 IPv6 addresses to each cell in your body.
If you think that's limited, you seriously need your head checked out.
Re:whats the ratio? (Score:4, Insightful)
And don't forget the public kiosks, the commercial networks, and so on. Not all of these can be placed on a private network (although most can).
Even with sensible NAT setups, it's very easy to run out of IPs before every person has a computer.
Re:whats the ratio? (Score:5, Insightful)
The CIA factbook reports 81.5% who can read and write. That's roughly one billion people, about four times the total population of the US. As of 2002, there are some 45.8 million Internet users in China.
In comparison, the US has about 166 million Internet users.
think about the same ratios in the US.
Yeah, let's do that. 22 million IPs for some 46 million Internet users comes to just under 1 IP address every two people. Since the US has 70% of the 4 billion IP addresses, that comes to just over 18 IP addresses per Internet user. The US now holds 36 times more IP addresses per Internet user than China.
What do you think now?
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Please try to be polite, mainly because you could be wrong, but also if you're right.
Your fundamental mistake is thinking of China as a single country, and pretending that the percentages makes sense. You think that "12% phone penetration" means that ten people share one phone, which is completely wrong. The fact is probably that 10 of the 12% are owned by 5% of the people, and the 2% left are owned by 95% of the people. (I made up the actual numbers as an example.)
That is, it's infinitely more useful to think of China as two countries: one with a population of 65 million and two phones each, and another with a population of 1.2 billion and very few phones. The needs of "China One" are very different from the needs of "China Two".
Coming back specifically to this issue, the question is how we figure the demand per Internet user for an IP address. This involves direct needs (equipment owned by the user) and indirect needs (servers that were built to satisfy this user). All in all, the US now consumes some 3 billion IP addresses with about 160 million users, and "China One" consumes 22 million IP addresses with about 40 million users.
The ratio here is off by about 30x. That is, on average, US Internet users require 30x more IP addresses than a Chinese Internet user. The challenge here is to explain the discrepancy, and to determine if the US is wasteful. Beyond the population, there's also the question of "how much Internet" the user consumes. Somebody who just uses email obviously has a smaller need than somebody who downloads Linux ISOs.
Your task, should you wish to defend the discrepancy, is to show that "China One" really doesn't need that many IPs, rather than diluting the needs of "China One" with the sheer numbers of "China Two".
I'd love to some facts to backup your claim of 45.8m internet users in China
CIA World Factbook. It's probably your responsibility if they're lying again. :)
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
Try not to say "nonsense" and "inescapable logic" right before you start guessing.
This article [news.com.au] states that PC sales exceeded 10.1 million units in 2002 alone. Assuming that people keep their PCs for 3 years (which is not unreasonable for a poorer country where a PC is a major investment), we should be talking about a population of over 20 million PCs. Even that conservative e
Re:Oh shut it with the PC nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure. This [planetanalog.com] quotes the IDC as expecting "China's PC sales to nearly double in a few years, from 11.3 million in 2002 to 21.1 million in 2006." Note that IDC's estimates are even higher than Xinhua's.
Furthermore, do not confuse current market share of NEW computers with the installed base of PCs as a whole.
Who's showing signs of confusion?
Re:Article Text (Score:4, Funny)
So, do you do this to subvert the moderators, or to catch logged-in karma whores who copy-paste AC posts of the article text into their own posts?
Re:Is this... (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who were in at the start all ended up with huge domains that they didn't expect to fill, but then they didn't expect that the address range would "ever" fill up. So why be picky.
Countries weren't really thought of during the first round of allocations. Or even companies. Or most government departments. Except for a few who were a part of the process. The second round, all those were assigned "fair" chunks. But they didn't think of ISPs, or such. That was the third round, which added in ISPs and a few involved techie users (who now wanted an address at home that didn't depend on where they worked).
I don't know which round of assignments we are now. Must be around the sixth or seventh. (A round comes to an end when people figure out that they are running out of addresses, so they revamp the rules of how they are allocated.) Somewhere in there DHCP and bootp started being used so that people didn't get "permanent" addresses anymore.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:ISPs to lose source of revenue with IPv6 (Score:5, Interesting)