Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPv6 is here

apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: IPv6 is here

#41

Post by count »

bodyfour wrote: post #29
rbranson wrote: post #17

We are by no means out of IPv4 addresses. The next step is that all of the entities who needlessly snapped up /8 space early on and sat on it for so long will be selling it off. The list includes GE, Xerox, IBM, HP, Apple, MIT, Ford, Halliburton, Prudential Insurance, Bell-Northern, Merck, Eli Lilly, the DoD/military (who has 13), USPS, and CSC. Just half of this space is 234m IPv4 addresses.

Sigh... this idea has to get thrown out every time there's an IPv4-exhaustion discussion. I guess I'll be the one to do the public service of debunking it this time. * You can assume that each of the /8s have plenty of infrastructure relying on them, meaning $millions in migration costs. Do you think that the holders will just give them up tomorrow, or do you think its more likely they'll sick some lawyers on the pro…

Also, remember that some of those large companies are USING those /8's internally. No private addresses, just unreachable /8 public IPs - the way the internet is supposed to work.

We need to stop beating a dead horse and start deploying AAAA and v6 across the board. We used to only have 3 network sizes too (/8, /16, and /24), but we managed as an internet community to get rid of classful crap and move onto VLSM and CIDR.

Re: IPv6 is here

#42

Post by devicenull »

count wrote: post #39
CrLf wrote: post #34

Even after innumberable discussions about this subject, I still don't get why people are so afraid of NAT. The main concern seems to be about ISPs starting to NAT everybody and their dog. Well, guess what, they just can't do that. For starters because their users would get very angry when their torrents stop working, and would jump ship for any other ISP that announces that it either doesn't do NAT or has implemented…

How will the cost of owning a v4 space go up? It's yours, the price is set, and ARIN/IANA et al have not mentioned any intention of increasing price.

For people that don't actually have their own allocation from a RIR, the price will likely go up. It's a matter of supply and demand, their provider is going to have a shrinking pool of IP addresses from which to assign new ones to servers. It seems likely to me they will start charging additional fees for more IP addresses.

Re: IPv6 is here

#43

Post by tintin »

ams6110 wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #6

IPv6 is in no sense here. The fiat allocators can exhaust their address space completely and the Internet will continue to function indefinitely; it will simply become more expensive (first marginally, and then significantly) to hold a static address. There are deep problems with universal deployment of IPv6 far beyond simply getting people to throw a switch; the number of popular software packages that will malfunct…

The natural solution will be that IPv4 addresses will start getting more and more expensive as they become scarce. At some point, switching to IPv6 will be the cheaper option, and then the switch will happen.

Or companies and universities will give up there unused IPv4 addresses so there will be a lot available again. They may even sell them at large prices. But then again, it's just a matter of time before we are really out of IPv4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion#Reclama...

Re: IPv6 is here

#44

Post by ErrantX »

This might be a stupid idea, so feel free to roundly berate me, but...

Given that a switch to IPv6 has potential to cause widespread problems, and that we might be facing such a switch before they are ironed out..

Can we not simply update IPv4 and add a new octet to the address space? So 255.255.255.255.255, then call everything distributed so far 000.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and make a start on the 001.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx address space.

I appreciate that we would need to update a lot of software to handle the new octet, but I can't help feeling that would be much easier to do (with the advantage of easier "failing gracefully" / backward support).

But networking ain't my thing :)

Re: IPv6 is here

#45

Post by jwatzman »

ErrantX wrote: post #44

This might be a stupid idea, so feel free to roundly berate me, but... Given that a switch to IPv6 has potential to cause widespread problems, and that we might be facing such a switch before they are ironed out.. Can we not simply update IPv4 and add a new octet to the address space? So 255 .255.255.255.255, then call everything distributed so far 000.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and make a start on the 001.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx addre…

As I understand it, the problem for IPv6 is with existing routing hardware and with testing. So if you're going to go through all the effort to add a new octet (which requires changing the IP packet format to allow for the extra space, for example), then you might as well go all the way to IPv6 and solve the problem once and for all.

Re: IPv6 is here

#46

Post by ErrantX »

jwatzman wrote: post #45
ErrantX wrote: post #44

This might be a stupid idea, so feel free to roundly berate me, but... Given that a switch to IPv6 has potential to cause widespread problems, and that we might be facing such a switch before they are ironed out.. Can we not simply update IPv4 and add a new octet to the address space? So 255 .255.255.255.255, then call everything distributed so far 000.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and make a start on the 001.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx addre…

As I understand it, the problem for IPv6 is with existing routing hardware and with testing. So if you're going to go through all the effort to add a new octet (which requires changing the IP packet format to allow for the extra space, for example), then you might as well go all the way to IPv6 and solve the problem once and for all.

Ah, the IP packet format - hadn't considered that aspect, cheers. As you say - wouldn't make sense.

Re: IPv6 is here

#47

Post by devicenull »

tomjen3 wrote: post #33
andyv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you only buy an ipv6 address, the people who are only on ipv4 can't get to you. By itself, the ipv6 address is nearly worthless. The only people who have them now are people who also have an ipv4 address. ipv4 isn't going away any time soon...

Take any prefix thats currently unallocated and make it so that you slap that in front on any ipv4 address. Volia now everybody has an ipv6 address.

What's wrong with the standard way of doing it? ::127.0.0.1

Re: IPv6 is here

#48

Post by drdaeman »

andyv wrote: post #28
ams6110 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The natural solution will be that IPv4 addresses will start getting more and more expensive as they become scarce. At some point, switching to IPv6 will be the cheaper option, and then the switch will happen.

But if you only buy an ipv6 address, the people who are only on ipv4 can't get to you. By itself, the ipv6 address is nearly worthless. The only people who have them now are people who also have an ipv4 address. ipv4 isn't going away any time soon...

Nope, there's always NAT64+DNS64 to rescue.

Well, when ISP hits a cap they either have to get more IPv4 addresses (which they won't be able to do soon) or use some NAT. Except for legacy systems support, NAT64 is clearly a winner here.

Re: IPv6 is here

#49

Post by drdaeman »

steadicat wrote: post #18

Is nobody else afraid that instead of IPv6 we're now going to get more and more layers of NAT? Sure, for us geeks that's totally unthinkable... no servers, no P2P?!? But most users, who are content with just web & email, will probably never notice the difference. ISPs will surely find it easier to turn NAT on than to switch to IPv6, and the backlash might be close to nonexistent.

There will be NATs, one way or another. Nobody plans to start everything from scratch, so IPv6-to-IPv4 gateways (NAT64) seem inevitable.

Re: IPv6 is here

#50

Post by e40 »

count wrote: post #40
Jem wrote: post #35

I only have a basic understanding of IPv4 vs IPv6, so can someone explain to me: a) what impact will this have on me as Joe Public internet user? b) what impact will this have on me as a web developer? Or point me to suitable websites that explain in quick skimmable chunks...

a) Eventually (most likely next year or later), if you do not have IPv6 connectivity, there will be new content and sites added to the global internet that you will have no way of accessing at all from your v4 connected computer. a2) Alternatively, in a year or so, you get service from a brand new ISP that has no v4 connectivity (so, you are v6 native), and you cannot access anything on the v4 Internet around the wor…

Why would a new ISP have no v4 connectivity? They'd be connected to someone, and they would likely have v4 connectivity. Wouldn't they be able to have a private network connection to them (10.x.x.x)?
Post reply on HN