vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | It'll be a slow process
But it's got to get going, we WILL run out of IPv4 addresses real soon. |
|
modifiy
join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN | No we wont. NAT has saved us from getting close to running out. 40% of IPv4 is still unused. We have a while before we even get close. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| we could reclaim a ton of IPv4 if a few select groups would give up their multiple unused blocks. dont some if the big corporations and Universities have a few million unused IPs that they gained the blocks for back when the net was being built and will never use.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
modifiy
join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN
 ·Qwest.net
 ·Comcast
| Yes. A lot of companies and Universities early to the game Got class A addresses. Most of them don't come close to using those spaces and most even use private IPs for most things. I'm sure if we really hit the wall with addressing it would come to a point where they would say give up your unused space. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
1 edit | reply to modifiy
said by modifiy  :No we wont. NAT has saved us from getting close to running out. 40% of IPv4 is still unused. We have a while before we even get close. NAT was never a good solution and isn't acceptable for whole classes of devices. Now, IPv4 gives us a little less than 4.3 billion (that's short billions for our non-US posters) IP addresses. According to the CIA World Factbook, the world population is 6.7 billion. Just wait until the developing world starts coming online. Not to mention the fact that tons of electronic devices that never needed IP that all of a sudden will (think TV's, media players, cell phones, video game consoles, smart fridges, etc), and it's not unreasonable to assume that the average person could need 3, 4, or more IP addresses. There is an EXPLOSIVE growth in IP address demand right around the corner, 40% of our IPv4 addresses being free right now won't mean a thing. |
|
modifiy
join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN
·Qwest.net
·Comcast
| I disagree. NAT was a very good solution. If it wasn't for this solution we wouldn't be talking about going to IPv6 chances are we would already be there or much further in the process. NAT absolutely change the ip addressing game. They said we would run out of addresses in/before 2000 and we are still have about 40% free.
Right now there are roughly 1.5 billion online in the world. There are defiantly more devices then humans online by that count. I agree it's not unreasonable for the average Joe to need 3+ online devices, but its also unreasonable to think that each one of those devices will need it's own public IP address. Most things work fine with private ip and NAT.
Yes we will run out of addresses at some point, but it has and will take longer than what people think. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| reply to modifiy
Why does Ford need 19.0.0.0/8? There are a ton of other non network companies out there with /8 networks. I can at least see why Apple and IBM grabbed up /8 networks but neither of them use the networks for anything other than what 10.0.0.0/8 is intended for. |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to vpoko
Every device in a single household, MOST devices you mentioned soon needing an IP can be Natted..seriously where do people come up wit this stuff? The problem is as stated /8 blocks unused and being sat on for no good reason. Think about it. EVERY household could have ONE ip and NAT ALL HOUSEHOLD DEVICES...Even WIRELESS CARRIERS could NAT. CABLE companies do on the C0 int....
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Oh yeah, I love not being able to run servers because of NAT.
No thanks, NAT was always a temporary solution that handicapped access to the internet, and I for one am glad it won't be part of IPv6. |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP.
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Hangmn :Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP. Fair enough. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to vpoko
said by vpoko :But it's got to get going, we WILL run out of IPv4 addresses real soon. Actually, the U.S.A. has about 40% of the worlds IP addresses, and we as a country have plenty of IPv4 addresses for the next 50+ years.
There are many other countries, ESPECIALLY in Asia and Africa, which are now emerging internet markets that will have problems. There are quite a few ISP's already that are IPv6 ready in China, Japan, South Korea.
At some point however, we will need to convert over to IPv6. But the world isn't going to end in the U.S. if it takes us another 10 years or more.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" |
|
u3912974
join:2007-07-31
San Francisco, CA | reply to vpoko
i agree. start it now |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to vpoko
said by vpoko :Not to mention the fact that tons of electronic devices that never needed IP that all of a sudden will (think TV's, media players, cell phones, video game consoles, smart fridges, etc), and it's not unreasonable to assume that the average person could need 3, 4, or more IP addresses. I am currently using 12 IP addresses; however, I really only need 2 publicly routeable IP addresses. Not really sure I'd like the NAS, or HR-21 on the public Internet.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :Every device in a single household, MOST devices you mentioned soon needing an IP can be Natted..seriously where do people come up wit this stuff? The problem is as stated /8 blocks unused and being sat on for no good reason. Think about it. EVERY household could have ONE ip and NAT ALL HOUSEHOLD DEVICES...Even WIRELESS CARRIERS could NAT. CABLE companies do on the C0 int.... No, the problem isn't the unused /8s at all. There aren't that many sitting around unused to be reclaimed. We go through a whole /8 every few months at this point. Forcibly reclaiming them would buy us a year or two at best.
NAT is terrible. It breaks or makes more difficult everything from VoIP to gaming to p2p to home automation. It's a crappy solution that never should have been and should have outlived its usefulness about 5 years ago when ISPs should have already moved to IPv6.
v4 is history whether you or anybody else likes it or not. Even the big operators have finally gotten on board. It's just a matter of time now.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :Not really sure I'd like the NAS, or HR-21 on the public Internet. That's what a firewall is for.
The nice thing about that is then the device can easily and without conflicting with other devices open the ports it needs using UPnP. Currently if you have two devices that need the same port you're SOL if you have the usual single dynamic address.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to vpoko
the main fear i have is ISPs not giving up their current 1 IP per home habits. if we have to pay for each computer then IPv6 will have a very rough deployment.
but if IPv6 is as big as they claim each house could in theory have 15 or so each without a problem even on an ISP as large as Comcast.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to wierdo
I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math.
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Hangmn :I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math. It's going to probably take those 10 years to get everyone over to IPv6. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math. No, simple math tells us we can't. At the current rate of usage the free pool will be exhausted in one to two years. Reclaiming all /8s would give us perhaps one more year. There are currently 47 remaining unallocated /8s. If those will be allocated in two years, as the best estimates indicate, what good will reclaiming all of the 37ish legacy /8 allocations (most of which are in use, mind you!) do us? Buy us another year?
That makes about as much sense as delaying the DTV transition did.
Your estimate is off by nearly an order of magnitude. Perhaps you should not talk of simple math when you cannot perform simple math yourself?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
