Internet IPv4 Addresses Depleted by Early 2011

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]jskilnyk[/nom]Isn't that why they thought up the crazy idea of IPv6... If anyone has the time can they tell use how many different IPv6 address there are versus IPv4?[/citation]

IPv4 is basically xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, all numbers while IPv6 is xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx, usinf hex thus making it have more possible combinations.

It seems strange to me that IPv6 has been supported since at least Vista (2006) and the ISPs just want to drag their feet.

The internet keeps getting these great new parts but they are never used. Its sad.

 

[aaron88_7]

[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]Was there not an article EXACTLY like this a few months ago...?On a side note, IPv6 will NEVER catch on. It's far too complex compared to IPv4. Who's gonna remember 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf when they can remember 192.168.1.100? It just doesn't make sense. They need to find a new method of generating IP's that is practical.[/citation]
You only remember 192.168.1.100 because that is a popular private class c address used in most home networks. However I doubt you could remember Tom'sHardware's IP address off the top of your head if you were told about it 10 minutes ago.

IPv6 really isn't that complicated and it already is catching on and once IPv4 addresses are exhausted IPv6 implementation will become much more popular.

I don't know why some people are going ape sh*t over this because it's really not that big of a deal. As many have already pointed out NAT already has and will continue to help ease the transition towards IPv6 and even with IPv6 NAT will continue to be used for security purposes. But NAT isn't an answer to the limited IPv4 address issue and does strain routers that may not necessarily need to run NAT once IPv6 is more widely adopted.

Anybody who works in IT would be foolish to not be studying up on IPv6 right now because whether you like it or not this will be a part of the future of IT.

 

[palladin9479]

IPv6 has been around since Windows XP and you could update a Windows 2000 server to have it. Damn near every network device on the planet has IPv6 support inside it. The reason its not being used isn't the ISP's its the companies and business's who don't want their internal machines exposed to the entire world. Cisco is already working on a carrier grade NAT solution. IPv4 won't be going away anytime soon no matter what people say. Not until the IPv6 group designs in their own NAT and NAT traversal mechanism. IPv4 NAT developed from a need, there is demand for it. That demand hasn't evaporated with the development of IPv6. You can't regulate / engineer the demand away, it must be met and supplied.

 

[palladin9479]

I hate how I can't edit comments.

@Aaron88_7,
The current IPv6-NAT is only implemented as a transition mechanism with IPv4. IPv6 will still talk to another IPv6 host using their full address which includes the link local address otherwise known as the EUI-64 of your adapters MAC. If you were to take a laptop from your home and move it to another part of the world, your unique IPv6 address would be easily traceable because the EUI-64 doesn't change with locations. Not to mention your laptop will be communicating directly with any other system on the global internet. The IPv6 engineering group has refused to standardize NAT because it violates their "end to end communications" principle. If they don't standardize it, someone else will invent a method to accomplish it and then someone will invent methods to traverse the first method and we're back to using a non-standard NAT implementation.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]IPv4 is basically xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, all numbers while IPv6 is xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx, usinf hex thus making it have more possible combinations.It seems strange to me that IPv6 has been supported since at least Vista (2006) and the ISPs just want to drag their feet.The internet keeps getting these great new parts but they are never used. Its sad.[/citation]
Windows XP also supports IPv6 since SP2, it just doesn't come enabled by default.

 

[aaron88_7]

I'm not saying IPv4 will be going away anytime soon, for many people/businesses there is no real need to ditch their IPv4 addresses. What I am saying is that most of IPv6 implementation will take place once IPv4 addresses are finally depleted. We've had warnings about their depletion for years so this update really isn't anything new, but just because the industry has largely been ignoring the warnings doesn't mean IPv6 won't catch on, it has to.

I really don't even think the IPv4 depletion will be as big of an issue in the US as it will in developing countries such as India and China. Many US businesses already are hogging IPv4 addresses, (which is probably a big reason much of the industry has ignored the depletion warnings), but emerging countries will be forced into using IPv6 addresses more than others.

I could be wrong, but I believe Verizon has already begun IPv6 implementation on their wireless networks.

 

[palladin9479]

I agree IPv6 makes sense on mobile phones and other mobile devices. Internet cafes and various other public type connections. My biggest hitch is at the home user level, consequently the birth place of NAT. It was done for a reason, and that reason had nothing to do with the global depletion of IP address's. For the engineering board to ignore that reason in their arrogance and then blame everyone else why IPv6 hasn't caught on is foolish. Companies would of jumped on IPv6 years ago if it had some built in NAT masquerading mechanism.

If they don't develop their own NAT standard, then someone in a basement somewhere is going to. And I'd prefer us not to end up with the same non-standardized problem we had with IPv4 NAT. It took years for manufactures to standardize it and for software developers to traverse it.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

So why did we even both with IPv4 in the first place?

 

[refraction]

So why did we even both with IPv4 in the first place?

Because the internet consisted of just a few thousand people, they never expected it to grow this big.

I think this question falls under the same catagory as "Why would we ever need more than 640k of memory?"

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]Was there not an article EXACTLY like this a few months ago...?On a side note, IPv6 will NEVER catch on. It's far too complex compared to IPv4. Who's gonna remember 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf when they can remember 192.168.1.100? It just doesn't make sense. They need to find a new method of generating IP's that is practical.[/citation]
Hell, for some people 192.168.1.100 is too complicated
Why not drop it down to 6 digits and then it will be a snip to remember if it was just 192.168
...
Oh, hang on, that doesn't solve the problem because we just used every IP address in the world just for the smartphone on sale at 3 shops in the city.
...
Dude, if the numbers are running out then the IP address needs to be longer - not shorter - being able to remember it easily is not a factor in the equation, fixing the problem is the issue.

 

[K2N hater]

[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]They envisioned a world where every single device is a node and gets a unique address connected to a huge world network. Great for a SF book or movie but horrible for privacy and reality reasons.[/citation]
That's it! In the IPv6 world there are so many avaiable addresses that the governments will use it as ID. They'll use it with the excuse of tracking terrorists, paedophiles and such...

Perhaps THG could make a bold article warning about the future of our privacy which is... a human right.

 

[erhardm]

I agree with palladin9479. Security is the most important factor why the companies didn't deployed IPv6. If you would know that the information gathering in a pentesting is the most important, you would agree too. If you know the inside network it's just a matter of time until you find the vulnerability.Until an equivalent NAT IPv4 is developed for IPv6 companies who already have their IPv4 and don't need new ones won't deploy

 

[erhardm]

I agree with palladin9479. Security is the most important factor why the companies didn't deployed IPv6. If you would know that the information gathering in a pentesting is the most important, you would agree too. If you know the inside network it's just a matter of time until you find the vulnerability.Until an equivalent NAT IPv4 is developed for IPv6 companies who already have their IPv4 and don't need new ones won't deploy

 

[itadakimasu]

The community college I attend has a b-class block, and they don't use NAT. Each device has it's own public ip address... but even then, I'm guessing they don't use any more than 30% of their allotted block.

Also... 127.0.0.0. How awesome is that? Nothing like wasting 17,000,000 addresses.

 

[Rab1d-BDGR]

I think palladin9479 and others have already expressed my views on this very eloquently. Basically IPv6 is terrible for security and privacy for both home users and businesses. Then there is the additional net neutrality issues too. The whole thing is ill-conceived and should be abandoned. There is still time to develop a better protocol, there are lots of unused "reserved" v4 addresses for now, let's use our time wisely and get a protocol that the end users actually WANT to switch to.

 

[Guest]

I guess a lot of it has to do with the mobile phones, now connecting to the internet.
You'd have to know there already are a lot of computers behind routers, connected to the internet, so the total amount of computers online has surpassed many times the available adresses.

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]erhardm[/nom]I agree with palladin9479. Security is the most important factor why the companies didn't deployed IPv6. If you would know that the information gathering in a pentesting is the most important, you would agree too. If you know the inside network it's just a matter of time until you find the vulnerability.Until an equivalent NAT IPv4 is developed for IPv6 companies who already have their IPv4 and don't need new ones won't deploy[/citation]
Why? Because there is no motivation to until now (the last second). Besides the fact that the packet protocol is significantly different and IPv6 is not interoperable with IPv4, money is tight and has been (and typically is in IT)...then yeah...change only when we have to mostly. IT people are always slowwwwww to adopt...I know this because...well...I must be IT.

 

[drhenks]

[citation][nom]K2N hater[/nom]That's it! In the IPv6 world there are so many avaiable addresses that the governments will use it as ID. They'll use it with the excuse of tracking terrorists, paedophiles and such...Perhaps THG could make a bold article warning about the future of our privacy which is... a human right.[/citation]
Fear mongering... Was it a huge privacy concern back when we were using 2 million (.001 of the total) IPv4 addresses? I don't remember it being an issue. How about we try to inform rather than scare.

 

[HalJordan]

...and I feel fine.

 

[HalJordan]

I could have also gone with, "Game over, man! Game over!"