Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet

US Shrugs Off World's IP Address Shortage 616

Clifton Griffin writes "C|Net has an article stating that the U.S. isn't making the push for IPv6 like others are even though the networking appliances and operating systems are ready for it. It goes on to explain that North America has 70% of the Internet address space and that there is a total of 1 billion IPs left, which may sound like a lot but considering we now have Internet-enabled cellphones and VoIP, it really isn't."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Shrugs Off World's IP Address Shortage

Comments Filter:
  • This was reported everywhere yesterday.

    We all know that the government only cares about keeping big business happy and won't force them to spend money to change to a new system.

    What needs to happen is let the rest of the world switch and then shut off access to IPv4 for the US to accept it.
    • Follow the money. Since US interests control most of the IPv4 addresses there is a vested interest in keeping them scarce. The fewer IP addresses there are, the more valuable they become. If we switch to IPv6 many generous campaign contributors will lose this valuable commodity. The rest of the world could switch to IPv6, but since so many important sites are located in the US there will still be a need for IPv4 for quite a while.
  • by QLNESS ( 524995 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:49AM (#6559780)
    I've decided to donate the ip range of 127.0.0.1/24 to everyone. By reading this message you'll automatically have the ip's installed for you.
  • Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inertia@yahoo.com ( 156602 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:51AM (#6559807) Homepage Journal
    I wish I had a dime for every IP assigned to (and released from) my devices. God Bless America! <sniff />

    Wait a second, 1 billion is a lot of IPs. My web enabled phone has never been assigned an internet accessible IP address, it's on some kind of weird proxy service. My computers at work are on a NAT. So that leaves my computer at home, and it's had that "dynamic" IP assignment for months and months. No wonder we're shrugging it off. Get over it.
    • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Insightful)

      by subzero_ice ( 624972 )
      You may not be using that many public IPs but there are many corporations that own huge chunks regardless. For example some corporations own xxx.xxx.1.1-xxx.xxx.255.255
      • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Canard ( 594978 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:29PM (#6561373)
        There are 32k class B addresses so there are about 32000 corporations or organizations which own the range of addresses you give. There are also 127 class A addresses, many of those also controlled by corporations or organizations. From a quick perusal of the registrations we find:

        GE (3.x.x.x), GTEI (4.x.x.x and 8.x.x.x), army.mil (6.x.x.x, and 55.x.x.x), AT&T (12.x.x.x, 32.x.x.x), Xerox (13.x.x.x), HP (15.x.x.x, 16.x.x.x), Apple (17.x.x.x), MIT (18.x.x.x), Ford (19.x.x.x), CSC (20.x.x.x), ARIN.NET (24, 63-69), ucl.ac.uk (25), nipr.mil (33), inet-hou.com (34), merit.edu (35), psi.net (38), uu.net (40), v6nic.net (43), ampr.org (44), vt.edu (45), Nortel (46), Dupont (52), debir.de (53), usps.gov (56), equant.net (57), apnic.net (60, 61), ripe.net (62, 80-82).

        Those are all of the ones that respond to an in-addr.arpa request. It would be interesting to see how many of those listed actually use their addressable space. ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC provide subdivided blocks of addresses to Europe, Asia, and North America. Net 34 (inet-hou.com) appears to be the personal property of a Houston resident named Richard Harrison. Net 44 (ampr.org) is the amateur packet radio subnet, and there are a few other ISPs there, like 40 (uu.net), 38 (psi.net), and probably one or both of the AT&T class A's. And there are a few universities both in the US and one in the UK. I would suspect that most of the corporate subnets are firewalled anyway, so moving any of those would represent only the inconvenience of renumbering their networks -- but it isn't as if the machines were actually reachable from the 'net.

    • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:08AM (#6560130) Homepage
      Have you tried to do voice chat? Gaming? Serving? Anything other then basic web browsing behind a NAT? NATs seriously reduce the usability of the internet - in many cases, either you forward (thus making it so only one computer behind a NAT of many may serve a certain content) or you don't use that on your computer.

      Its sad that there is still no free VOIP client that works consistently behind a NAT (and there are many, many free VOIP clients). Direct P2P file transfers are similarly painful.

      Yes, there are solutions, but they're either rare, expensive, hacks, or a combination of the above. Thinking that a NAT is fine just means that you don't do much with your computer.
      • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's out, NAT is the ugly evil quasimoto of the Internet! Bwhhha, ha, ha!

        (As opposed to the pretty one? :/ )

      • Problems? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by phorm ( 591458 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:23AM (#6560354) Journal
        • Voicechat or Videochat: Not NAT-friendly, not at all. Anyone who can help me with this will be on my friends list
        • Gaming: Fairly NAT friendly. Most of my games work fine, battle.net works fine, direct games often work well (Sometimes hosting is a biatch though).
        • Serving: Serving what? FTP is the main pain but there are special kernel mods to make it NAT'able, the rest works fairly well.
        • Direct P2P: What do you mean by direct? Kazaa works fine for both upload/download with my current IPtables config. If you mean file-transfers, MSN/ICQ are a bit quirky... as uploads can be iffy (MSN downloads ok though, anyone want to help me with this)
        • Re:Problems? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Trevalyx ( 627273 )
          I'll comment on gaming and direct P2P. I'm behind a NAT box currently and it turns gaming into something of a mild disaster. It would be nice to host on one box and play on another, but with a NAT router, if the other computers aren't on your network, it can be an extreme hassle, especially if you're introducing third-party servers for the connection.
          Yes, direct P2P is a hassle as well. I have trouble getting and sending AIM file transfers, which is the source of infinite consternation on the behalf of pe
      • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Twister002 ( 537605 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:28AM (#6560433) Homepage
        > Have you tried to do voice chat?

        Yes, better I've done video chat using MSN messenger netphone, CUCme, Netmeeting, and ICUII. Had to configure the router but it worked.

        >Gaming?

        Yes, both playing and serving. Had a RTCW beta server running on my Linux box with people connecting and playing outside my firewall. Quake servers, Counterstrike Server, even Moonbase Commander once, Age of Mythology beta test, Ultima Online, Anarchy Online. Just about everything.

        >Serving?

        Yes, I ran my own web server, FTP server, and mail server behind a NATted firewall/router for over a year on a cable modem. The only reason I stopped was because I moved away from the service area.

        >Anything other then basic web browsing behind a NAT?

        Yes, SSHing, telnet, MUDing, IMing, FTPing, Napster (shhhh) back when it was still up. IM file transfers.

        My NAT router/firewall cost $50. One of those rare, expensive hacks I guess.

        It's not like port forwarding is a big deal, or expensive, or really screws up the network.
        • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Informative)

          by dnoyeb ( 547705 )
          His question was somewhat off. The loss of addresses is not due to NAT not working, its due to dynamic IP addresses causing difficulties for *everything* you cited.

          When your IP changes, your server (whatever the type) is disconnected. You need to use a service like dynDNS or some such, which works but is a hack.

          Also, try having 2-3 people behind a NAT and playing those same games online, possible but not as easy.

          I still dont think the IP addy space is running out. Seems like another Y2K scam if you as
      • Re:Shrug (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:32AM (#6560490) Homepage
        Have you tried to do voice chat? Gaming? Serving? Anything other then basic web browsing behind a NAT?

        Yes.. I use Creative Voice Blasters with fobbit phone to talk via VoIPtwice a day without a hint of trouble, I play many games online with others.. Q3,wofenstin,Ut2003.. my daughter play's sims online. and we play PLaystations online games all the time (for free might I add.. in your face Xbox Fanboys) I also serve my own web pages and webcams, email server and ssh/sftp..

        no hassles at all. and it takes 3 seconds to change the rules in the hardware router/firewall.

        anyone having trouble either doesn't have a clue about what they are doing, or has the wrong hardware misconfigured horribly.
      • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mr. methane ( 593577 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560669) Journal
        I've operated two major businesses - both with over 2,000 employees - from behind proxy/nat systems. In one case I had a /24 (of which I used precisely four IP's) and in the other case I had a /28 (which was used more completely because of multiple web sites).

        I'm using NAT right now, and running VoIP (vonage) flawlessly, gaming with both Xbox and PC (I get fragged a lot, but it's because I'm a mediocre player, ping time ain't a factor). At the same time I'm also using a VPN (so it looks like I have full routing to a corporate network). NAT and DHCP have made home networking so simple that a lot of products require little or no configuration, which means a lot more people can take advantage of them.

        IPv6 is a very interesting technology, but there's simply nothing that makes it worth investing time and money for most companies and end-users. When there's some "killer app", that makes it worthwhile to switch to IPv6.... I will take the plunge like everyone else.

        I think it's a good idea to make users sit behind a proxy. It reduces security risks for inexperienced users, makes it easier to identify mp3 downloaders, and keeps the terminally clueless from turning on IIS and having their machines owned in 30 seconds flat. NAT, squid, and other technologies pretty much made the address "shortage" a non-issue, by increasing exponentially the efficiency of IP address allocation. A certain famously demanding lady from NSI also deserves some credit, for brow-beating ISP's into being more realistic about address space requests.

        • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) *
          I want to also chime in on using VPN, vonage, gaming, etc on NAT. Works well enough.

          NAT at best is a stop-gap solution. What needs to be done is a smart re-allocation of unused IPv4 addresses. How many does Apple, Microsoft, IBM, MIT, etc have that they will never use in a million years?

          One day IPv6 will be here, but we'll need to break up the huge IPv4 blocks fist.
        • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pHDNgell ( 410691 )
          I've operated two major businesses - both with over 2,000 employees - from behind proxy/nat systems.

          Sure, I'm behind a NAT at work right now. That's part of the reason I can't initiate a video chat with my wife right now. I don't really expect the same freedoms on a work network as I do on a home network, so when they use NAT and it breaks stuff, I don't complain.

          I think it's a good idea to make users sit behind a proxy.

          NATs and proxies are unrelated. While a NAT might work around not having a prox
      • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Interesting)

        by radish ( 98371 )
        I have a NAT setup consisting of the following:

        Linux box for firewall/routing
        Linux server (web/ftp/mail)
        W2K desktop - gaming, p2p, general use
        Laptop - email, web, work (VPN)
        PS2 - games :)
        Tivo - Tivoweb online scheduling, data updates via IP

        Guess what? It all works. About the only thing I don't do which you mention is VoIP, but the others are all fine. I get great performance up and down for the p2p I've tried (e.g. kazaa, edonkey, gnucleus). Gaming on both the PC and PS2 works without a hitch. For the SOC
      • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Insightful)

        by crisco ( 4669 )
        The problems with NAT and the current crop of applications that assume you're directly connected to the internet don't show up until you have more than one person behind the firewall trying to use the same application.

        I've easily reconfigured my firewall/NAT appliance to enable just about every application I've tried. Used this way, I might as well have one IP per computer. But getting multiple computers running the same game or application to connect to the outside world starts to get more difficult. Onl

      • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Informative)

        by VPN3000 ( 561717 )
        Yes, I do all of the above minus VOIP behind NAT.

        Klite/Kazaa and my VPN works fine, as does serving a battlefield, counter-strike, web and ftp server. The only things I can't seem to run are Microsoft's video conference software and old MSN gaming zone games.

        NAT is a hack itself. IIRC, the fellow who came up with the concept called it a waste of time for anyone who wasn't totally hard up for IP space.

        A billion IPs are available. None of your appliances are going to connect via a 'real' IP address, either
    • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Insightful)

      Wait a second, 1 billion is a lot of IPs.

      It's enough for ~15% of the people on this planet to get 1 more IP.
    • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:18PM (#6561226) Homepage Journal
      Although IP shortage is the usually quoted reason for IPv6, it's actually the least important.


      IPv6 provides the following significant other benefits:

      • Mobile IP (shift networks without dropping connections)
      • Guaranteed IP uniqueness (no kidnapping of IPs or accidental re-allocations is possible)
      • Faster routing (simpler header structure makes it quicker for routers to process a packet)
      • Smaller router tables (built-in heirarchical IP structure means you don't need more than the immediate routes in or out)
      • Automatic configuration for services (anycasting allows you to scan your LAN for all services provided and to configure your network accordingly)
      • IPSec as standard! Probably one of the most significant improvements.
      • Source-Specific Multicast as standard


      The reason the US isn't implementing IPv6 has nothing to do with address space. It has to do with the IPSec and mobility requirements. You can't wiretap an encrypted, variable-path connection so easily. And that puts ISPs and backbone providers at risk from Big Nasty Thugs in the Department of Homeland Insecurity.

      • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Interesting)

        by don_carnage ( 145494 )

        The reason the US isn't implementing IPv6 has nothing to do with address space.

        I could be wrong, but it might have something to do with the cost of upgrading all of the routers. And I'm not talking about just hardware costs, I'm talking about the amount of time it will take net admins to upgrade their equipment. "Spend money to make money" doesn't seem to apply in this economy.

  • by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:51AM (#6559813) Homepage
    Until there is a benefit, why expend the resources.

    If I have enough IP's why should I bother changing.
    Actually the other people can take the risk, do the upgrade, solve the problems, then the cost to change is cheaper.
    Once the benefit outweighs the cost, people will do it. It just doesn't make sense yet.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:51AM (#6559816)
    ipv6 (or a similar technology) will eliminate the demand for IPs (or the demand that ISPs claim there is).

    Without demand for IP space there will be no longer a need to charge ridiculous amounts for IP blocks (or even single IPs). Hell, there won't be a need to bundle home routers with Internet service to give NAT capabilities to the home.

    Looks like a lot of possible lost revenue. God forbid that happens.

    $10 for an extra IP is the average cost for broadband (used to be about $5), most ISPs don't even want to give you a static IP (back in 1995 it cost $30/extra for a static IP on dialup!)

    I have something like 1 million+ IPs assigned to me with IPv6 and I am using 10 (for what you ask? for vhosts because that's all IPv6 is useful for).

    Would I be using more than the 1 IP I am "dynamically" assigned if it wasn't "free"? No.
    • by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:02AM (#6560038) Journal
      Of course, it's a big conspiracy by the ISPs to rail you on the cost of IP addresses. It has nothing to do with the fact that to support IPV6, the ISPs would have to spend hundreds of man hours upgrading their routers and servers. And nothing to do with the fact that they would have to spend even more resources on technical support for their customers ("Durrrr... my iMac can't access the network. It just says something about Eye-Pee-Vee-Six com-pat-ability."), and that until everyone else adopted it, their customers would have trouble doing anything more complex than web browsing ("d00d, my 1337 kl4n c4n't g3t to my ph4t 53rv3r N3 more 51nc3 j00 n3rf3d my IP addr355 w1th th15 IPV6 cr4p"). And I'm sure the customers of the first ISPs to do this will wait paitently with their now disfunct connections while every one catches up.
      • Does anybody work in one of those overseas ISPs that have switched to IPv6? I'd like to hear some actual accounts from the trenches on this one. It could be as the above poster implied, or it could be relatively painless and automatic save for some of your older users who still have Win3.0 on their 386 and wonder why their 9600 baud modem connection isn't working anymore...
    • by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:05AM (#6560080) Homepage Journal
      Don't worry, I'm sure ISPs will still find a way to charge you an additional $15 (It's more expensive because 6 is bigger than 4) for each additional IP address you use.

      Having a static public IP can be extremely handy though. Whenever I have a cool graphic or whatnot I want my friends to see, I just stick it up on the webserver and send the email in a link. Because many of my friends use pine or AOL or Hotmail or whatnot, that's the most reliable way of distributing the file. Even my Mom likes getting a link and being able to click on it rather than saving the file off somewhere and trying to open it later. And that's only one of the many many useful things you can do once you have a server and a static IPs, especially once you learn CGI and the power of perl. :) It's really a shame that so many ISPs are terrified of people running private little servers for personal use.
      • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:39AM (#6560576) Homepage
        Having a static public IP can be extremely handy though. Whenever I have a cool graphic or whatnot I want my friends to see, I just stick it up on the webserver and send the email in a link.

        Funny, I have this with a dynamic IP right now.. in fact they can change my IP address every hour and it will still work...

        www.dyndns.org is your friend.

      • dyndns (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gosand ( 234100 )
        Having a static public IP can be extremely handy though. Whenever I have a cool graphic or whatnot I want my friends to see, I just stick it up on the webserver and send the email in a link. Because many of my friends use pine or AOL or Hotmail or whatnot, that's the most reliable way of distributing the file. Even my Mom likes getting a link and being able to click on it rather than saving the file off somewhere and trying to open it later. And that's only one of the many many useful things you can do once
      • additinal bandwidth costs aside, the main reason us ISPs are afraid of you running services is when you decide to try for tech help and call in, stumping our techs and wasting about 12 bucks an hour. 90 minutes of tech support blows the profit margin for X number of users. its not your virgin apache install with a perl page counter that we fear, its the money that we lose that we fear :D

        given that, we dont block any ports, give out real IPs, and my ISP at home far away also blocks no ports and gives out real IPs.

        and given THAT, as an isp netadmin, and as an isp customer to someone else, i'd gladly pay 5 bucks/month to a paranoid isp to unblock my ports and give me a real ip. ARIN charges you like 2 grand a year for your own /20, I think it was. you do the math.
    • However alot of the home routers also take care of firewalling or at least some degree of firewalling...
      The day we get IPv6 end-to-end, I guess we'll see a lot of hacked windowsboxes that used to be nated out of reach...
      Further there are several Microsoft OSes that doesn't even know IPv6 exists yet; Microsoft certainly have to take a big part of the blame for this issue
  • Easy fix (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:51AM (#6559818)
    Just roll out IPv6 along with the metric system.
  • nat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by goofballs ( 585077 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:51AM (#6559824)
    do cell phones, refirgerators, and other "appliances" really need a dedicated static i.p. address? why can't they use NAT and private addresses?
    • Re:nat (Score:3, Funny)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) *
      because people want to install Linux on their cell phone and ssh from home to check email on their phone that's why.

      Nevermind the fact that they can use a PHP interface for their kitchen (via a VNC+SSH tunnel) so that they can get the oven preheating, the dishwasher warming bread plates, and the fridge defrosting the meat for that night.
    • Re:nat (Score:5, Informative)

      by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul@prescod. n e t> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:57AM (#6559932)
      They only need dedicated static IP addresses if they are going to accept incoming IP connections from other networks without some kind of port forwarding. I do kind of like accepting incoming calls on my cell phone and I would kind of like the Internet protocols to be at least as flexible as the phone network. We should not rely on the wirleless telcoms to say who we can connect to and for what services. They will find ways to make it expensive. It is better that they provide the pipes and get the hell out of the way.
    • Re:nat (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:58AM (#6559946)

      do cell phones, refirgerators, and other "appliances" really need a dedicated static i.p. address? why can't they use NAT and private addresses?


      But if you have, say, 2 appliances that you need to be able to access from the outside, you'd need to keep them apart. For example one could be on port 31337 and the other on port 31338 and those ports are forwarded to 10.0.0.1:22 and 10.0.0.2:22. Of course, setting that up manually is a bit of a chore, plus you'd have to remember all of it. It would be neat if there was a standardized protocol to do this. Guess what, hotshot! This is your lucky day! There *is* such a protocol, and it *eliminates* all problems you could think of. It's not called uPNP,it's called... wait for it.. IPv6 !
    • Re:nat (Score:4, Funny)

      by aspjunkie ( 265714 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:01AM (#6560018) Homepage
      NAT makes hacking into your buddy's networked refrigerator overly difficult. You do want to be able to DDOS other people's icecube makers, and remotely change the their toaster settings to burnt... don't you?
    • Re:nat (Score:3, Insightful)

      Probably because switches are cheaper than routers. Also for external host A to talk to fridge B on your home network, you'd need to assign a dedicated port to B from your router and A would need to know that port. Short answer, because it's less complicated and less expensive. Don't take this to mean that I think my toaster and blender need an IP addresses but a stove with a built in network enabled PS2 would make waiting for water to boil a hell of a lot more entertaining!
  • by MC68040 ( 462186 )
    As 70% of the allocated space is in that specific region, as you can guess, it will cost 70% more (considering time spent on infrastructure such as router, switches etc upgrades).

    Of course, beeing a very technically forward place this should not be a problem, but some kind of a push is really needed. Especially for low-budget companies, instutions etc that make out a big part of the IP customers - they simply don't always have the "cash" for the migration. And "why migrate when this works fine for us" is a
  • Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul@prescod. n e t> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:52AM (#6559836)
    Canned response 1: There is no problem. Use NAT.
    Canned response 2: NAT is only good for outgoing.
    Canned response 3: NAT is an easy way to secure machines.
    Canned response 4: NAT is an abomination in the eyes of the Internet gods.
    Canned response 5: Even when we have IPv6, ISPs will charge huge amounts for IP addresses.

    If you write P2P software you will know that NAT is a major pain in the ass and requires very bizarre architectures involving reflectors owned and run by third parties (or at least port forwarding). More IP addresses cannot be a bad thing and we have to move sooner or later.

    • Re:Here we go... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by swb ( 14022 )
      I'll vouch for #4. It's not bad for home users or areas where you have real limited interconnection with other networks. But it's a royal pain if you use NAT and RFC1918 addresses on a large network and have to do frequent interconnection with other networks who also do the same.

      ASPs and others offering network interconnectivity services on a regular basis shouldn't ever use it in a way visible to customers, as it will result in a lot of address collision and annoying NAT-NAT double conversions that are
    • Re:Here we go... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pHDNgell ( 410691 )
      Canned response 3: NAT is an easy way to secure machines.

      Not suggesting that you think this is true, but it's a very wide misconception. NAT gives a lot of people a false sense of security. ``My system is on a non-routed IP address, there's no way anyone can break into it.''

      The problem, of course, is that they proceed to route it through a NAT, run externally visible services on it[0], network clients that are actively connecting out on the internet--possibly introducing back doors[1], etc...

      [0] I br
  • Cell Phones (Score:3, Interesting)

    by andy1307 ( 656570 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:53AM (#6559850)
    Why can't cell phones use NAT? I thought they already did.
  • Are you sure? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wavefront ( 104048 ) <gdenning@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:53AM (#6559851) Homepage Journal
    This [slashdot.org] Slashdot article reported that the impending IPv6 shortage is just a myth, and this [slashdot.org] Slashdot article repeated what CmdrTaco says. What is the real story here?
  • by Pac ( 9516 ) <paulo...candido@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:53AM (#6559853)
    "We couldn't care less about you other countries" seems to be the US motto nowadays.
  • by Sir Haxalot ( 693401 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:53AM (#6559859)
    When viewing this artical, in the browser taskbar it says 'US Shrugs Off World'...
  • Not to dis Americans, but if the problem doesn't concern them directly, they don't care about it. At the moment they've got lots of IP's, so they don't care. When the IP's are almost out in the US, then you'll hear a frantic concern about it.
  • What ISPs (in any country) are planning to roll out IPv6?

    Beuller? Beuller?
  • by gerf ( 532474 )

    Seriously, have you seen IPv6 IPs? They're not numbers anymore, like 216.239.57.99 (google.com), but more like afbc.3fa31b.ca329b and the such. it's just hideous, and not as well known how to work with by regular schmuck programmers.

    You can buy your own singular IP for about 50 bucks. It's very helpful if you don't want to change it each time you change ISPs, especially if you're running a personal box as a server.

    • by Maul ( 83993 )
      What is the problem? The average person doesn't need to REMEMBER an IP address. DNS still works over IPv6. People who need to know the addresses themselves can invoke a highly technical practice known as "writing them down."

      And BTW, IPv6 still uses numbers. They are just in hexadecimal.
  • Biggest overhaul in the web in decades.

    This seems to sum up this guys knowledge of the Internet. Move along, nothing to see here.

  • In general*, I'd say Americans don't become too concerned with change until it becomes necessary for THEM. Sure, the rest of the world needs it, but we don't. In this case I don't know if it's terribly crucial. Our (lack of) adoption doesn't seem to be slowing down that of anyone else. Also, we have plenty of large, international corporations that must make changes based on international customers as well as American customers, and I believe that will influence the speed of American migration to IPv6.

    *Gene
  • http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/13/194120 6&mode=thread&tid=95

    I have a hard time seeing industry not doing the same-- even if it is kicking and screaming.
    Actually, I'm kinda hoping this transition to IPv6 will kickstart hightech spending and put this economic lull to an end... GWB might want to think of doing that instead of tax breaks.. anyways.
  • by Desus ( 253573 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:56AM (#6559913) Homepage Journal
    they told congress that more IPs would only lead to more IP theft

    *rimshot*

    I'll be here all week folks.
  • by Danta ( 2241 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:59AM (#6559961) Homepage
    D.J.Bernstein has an insightful rant [cr.yp.to] about how/why the transition to IPv6 is going too slow while some people claim the transition is already done.
  • NAT sucks (Score:5, Informative)

    by 53x19 ( 621459 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @10:59AM (#6559964)
    I work for an ISP. One of my responsibilites is to manage our IP space (~/16). I am tired of dealing with IP justification, ARIN and customers who want to have public IPs on their office printer farm. Double and yes, sometimes triple NAT in order to get customer networks to talk to monitoring infrastructure. The sooner IP6 gets here the better.
  • 3. Profit!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:00AM (#6559983)
    A scarce resource is an opportunity for profit by those who control it. The U.S. Internet infrastructure is controlled by the same parties who control vast swaths of IPv4 address space. They stand to profit if supplies get tight. I see very little motivation for these parties to ever dilute the value of their current IP address real estate by moving to IPv6.

    If you cheap service, they'll give you an unwieldy NAT setup behind a dynamic IP address. If you want your own fixed IP address, you'll pay the tollkeepers a handsome fee to get it.

  • People said the same thing before CIDR and NAT caught on... and we still have people shouting "Class A!" "Class B!" who are proclaiming the sky is falling on IPv4.

    Cellphones eating your IP space? NAT 'em, except for the business users who want to VPN and pay for the priveledge (and stop kicking us off for inactivity while they're at it!). I'll bet that alone would save the Verizons and Sprints enough coins for an extra life.

    IPv4 will be around for a good long time. At least a decade more. IPv6 is coo

  • I really would like to see IPv6 take off and become widely used, even in the U.S.

    Until then, why not start a market where IPv4 addresses may be bought and sold and even leased for a while?

    A central marketplace would enable the IPv4 address changes to be forwarded automatically into the big DNS servers and a small tax on the transaction could fund the minimal cost of doing the updating.

    Finally, if the price for IPv4 addresses gets too high, then IPv6 will become naturally attractive, much in the same way

  • A bit of math (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darth_brooks ( 180756 ) <`clipper377' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:01AM (#6560003) Homepage
    Available number of IPv4 addresses: 4.2 billion

    Number of people on earth: 6.35 Billion according to ibilio [ibiblio.org]

    At this moment, Every other person on earth could have their own IP address. And we'd still have a billion IP's to spare.

    Throw NAT into the equation just for fun.

    With proper addressing schemes, IPv4 still has a ton of life left in it. It's nice to know IP6 is out there. But just because it's better doesn't mean it will ever gain world wide acceptance.

    Just ask Preston Tucker, The makers of the Betamax, The Newton development team, etc
  • But it is time for the US to think of more than just itself. This is not 19th century when you could be isolationist. It has to realise it is the leader of the world (consumer wise). Just because it not running out doesn't mean it shouldn't switch.. 1 billion addres isn't that much.
  • by packethead ( 322873 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:04AM (#6560052)
    Santa Cruz Operation Incorporated (SCO-3)
    Santa Cruz Operation Ltd (SCOL)
    Santa Cruz Operation Incorporated SCO1 (NET-150-126-0-0-1) 150.126.0.0 - 150.126.255.255
    Santa Cruz Operation Ltd SCO-1 (NET-192-86-169-0-1) 192.86.169.0 - 192.86.169.255
    Santa Cruz Operation Ltd SCO-2 (NET-192-153-2-0-1) 192.153.2.0 - 192.153.2.255
    Santa Cruz Operation Inc SBCIS68512 (NET-63-199-9-216-1) 63.199.9.216 - 63.199.9.223
    Santa Cruz Operation Inc. SBCIS21385 (NET-63-192-223-80-1) 63.192.223.80 - 63.192.223.87

  • by espo812 ( 261758 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:09AM (#6560148)
    As reported before, the US Department of Defense is going to become fully IPv6 compliant by 2008 and purchasing only IPv6 compliant devices starting in October (see this [yahoo.com] press release).

    Will they make full compliance by 2008? Probably not, knowing how government institutions work. However, DoD purchases a lot of computers, a lot of networked devices, etc. I remember hearing about 70% of their traffic goes accross the Internet (years ago, and they create a lot of traffic.) They have been a big influence on the 'net in the past [shu.edu], and I think this will be a big catalyst to IPv6 in the future.
  • by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:27AM (#6560408)
    Just because you have a Billion IP addresses available doesn't mean you can just get any one of those from the list and start using it. The IP addresses are assigned in blocks which correspond to networks. So to truely provide addresses for a global end-to-end IP network there are going to have to be a heck of a lot more addresses out there just to cover individuals not to mention all these devices people want to hook up. So, figure one or two IP addresses per person and we are already Billions short of the number needed. Figure more than that including remote sensing devices, routers, automated systems and oh yea businesses... then we are at a far greater shortage. Sure we can just add complexity and do some address translation, but are the conversion costs really that insurmountable as to make IPv6 out of reach? Most routers and computers have built in support for IPv6, but its seems that nobody is willing to ditch the old numbers and just use their IPv6 equivalents.
  • by cheetah ( 9485 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:28AM (#6560438)
    We aren't going to see a major shift in the US until Arin starts pushing Ipv6. The real problem is that currently getting Ipv6 costs money and doesn't get you very far. Look at it this way... currently a Ptla /32 costs $2500 a year. But people that have been sitting on Ipv4 blocks for years don't pay anything. I know of two Isp's that would like to offer Ipv6 the their customers but because they don't have their own Ipv4 netblocks they don't want to pay $2500 a year just so few of their customers have Ipv6. So instead of getting Ipv6 and moving away from Ipv4 they are forced to stay with Ipv4.

    I think that the situation is currently backwards to the way it should be. Arin ( and other Ipv4 providers ) should be charging next to nothing for Ipv6 netbocks ($100 or so) and slowly start charging more for Ipv4 blocks each year. So for the first year charge $100 for each Ipv4 block (on top of any other fees). The second year they would charge 500 and the year after that 1000 and then 3000 and so on... Until we start charging more for Ipv4 address's than Ipv6 we will not see any major move to Ipv6. The more people that can get switched over to Ipv6 the sooner the better.
  • by carpe_noctem ( 457178 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:42AM (#6560610) Homepage Journal
    Ok, I would be willing to convert my network to IPv6, but where do I begin? I use DSL, and have a static IP. How do you (a) get a block of IPv6 addresses, and (b) get your ISP to actually connect them to you?

    If your ISP doesn't support IPv6, are you SOL?
  • by upplepop ( 684833 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:43AM (#6560628)
    Tell MIT to give back their Class A, unless they *actually* have 24 million machines over there! There is no way a university needs that many IP addresses. I believe Stanford already gave up theirs because they realized it was unncessary.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-spac e

      there are quite a few /8 assignments that could be reviewed.

      012/8 Jun 95 AT&T Bell Laboratories
      013/8 Sep 91 Xerox Corporation
      015/8 Jul 94 Hewlett-Packard Company
      016/8 Nov 94 Digital Equipment Corporation
      017/8 Jul 92 Apple Computer Inc.
      018/8 Jan 94 MIT
      019/8 May 95 Ford Motor Company
      020/8 Oct 94 Computer Sciences Corporation
      032/8 Jun 94 Norsk Informasjonsteknology
      034/8 Mar 93 Halliburton Company
      038/8 Sep 94 P
  • by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:17PM (#6561211) Journal
    It almost seems like a daily occurence where slashdot reports on how much the Internet needs IPv6 or how much it is just hype. The fact that NAT is so prevelent is proof that we don't have enough addresses.

    However, there appears to be a misconception that Governments or ISPs must be the ones to make the conversion first. IPv6 is designed to run side by side with IPv4. I was given 1 IPv4 address from my ISP, but I can use the IPv6 6to4 transition mechanism and get 80 bits worth of routable addresses. And my ISP didn't have to do anything to set it up. (Static IP needed)

    Solaris, Linux, and Windows supports this right now. So I say get off your butts and get on IPv6 today.

  • by smitty45 ( 657682 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:25PM (#6561308)
    Marcus Ranum (author of NFR and someone who knows what he's talking about):

    "IPV6 is insane overcomplexity if that was the only problems we wanted to solve. We could have doubled the address size of V4, bumped the version number, and left-filled from zero. As far as the "route glut" problems that stimulated the original design of IPV6, we could have used conventions (e.g. something like CIDR addressing which hadn't been thought of when the V6 effort started) that could easily have solved those issues.

    Basically, the standards pukes are having fun playing their little games but none of it's really going to solve real problems. IPV6 is gonna be like ISO protocols all over again: what if they gave a protocol and nobody came?"
  • by billsf ( 34378 ) <billsf.cuba@calyx@nl> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:58PM (#6561738) Homepage Journal
    Don't really think it matters anymore what the USA thinks or does. Certainly they are the world's greatest threat to peace but that is quite offtopic. As for IPv6 it really is "Plug 'n Play" even if Microsoft can't quite do it yet. As stated, it is fully compatible with existing IPv4 and "opensource" has it completely covered. It just works and if, as one reader said: "99% won't care", that is just as well as they won't have to care. What could be better?

    Assignment can be automatic, while not exactly "two googols" of addresses, 2^128 minus those reserved is quite some number! (use your 'bc' and see it for yourself) If there are seven billion people on the planet (and that is an overestimate) we are looking at over some 1.8 x 10^26 "class C equivelant" per every human on the planet! (sorry Griffen, you grossly under-estimated in the same line you grossly over-estimated! -- ditch that Microsoft crap!) I seem to come to a figure of over '60 quadrillion class C equivalents' per second of 7 billion people living for 100 years and the last part is probably a gross exagreratation of what the average human life expectancy will be. Sure the US of A is scared!

    Somehow i fail to see the added expence in all of this. It may cost Microsoft $Billions, but the people that are going to need this don't care in the least if Microsoft lives or dies. IPv6 is today and i must admit i was quite impresed a number of years ago when i plugged in my old laptop running FreeBSD into an IPv6 network powered by OpenBSD and it worked instantly! It is this way today on all major Unix type platforms.

    Finally, i see only one downside to this and it is not important: "You probably won't be able to memorise all of your IP numbers and ranges no matter what tricks you use for IPv4 today". Get over it, it used to be cool to memorise your entire address book, but when mobiles came out, phone numbers got bigger and became 'throwaway' too. (This is quite litteral here in Europe as GSM mobile phones are usually given away with each and every subscription.)
  • by VPN3000 ( 561717 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @02:36PM (#6563134)
    "Microsoft, whose operating system runs 80 percent of the world's computers, has adopted the new addressing scheme in its Windows XP operating system, but it's switched off by default. The latest version of Apple's operating system is also IPv6-compatible.

    The open-source community has also begun incorporating IPv6 into its own operating systems."

    Oh yes, we have 'just begun' to put IPV6 support in Linux, FreeBSD, etc.. I think these features were evident in the open source OS's before Microsoft and Apple made the switch.

    I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice before. ;)
  • 9. @ IBM (Score:4, Informative)

    by psychofox ( 92356 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:37PM (#6563895)
    Someone who works for IBM told me that their internal network is called the '9.' network.

    So called because all the dotted ip addresses beginng with 9, (i.e.
    9.0.0.1 through 9.255.255.254 belong to them).

    Thats 0.4% of the ENTIRE IPV4 address space, assigned to one company. IRC, MIT has a similar allocation...

Take an astronaut to launch.

Working...