121–130 of 208 posts
I think this is good. If these guys hoard ipv4, corporation will be forced to ipv6. Isn't that a good news?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of a highly constrained resource, they're using a tiny fraction of what they've been given. That's a weird definition of "using what they have." If I asked for a class C for my business running a local corner store, I'd be looked at like I was crazy. IBM gets 16 million public IPs and it's cool? Yeah, I know you can't perfectly use an IP space, but with 128 offices, IBM could give each office an allocation of around…
It may be difficult to understand now, but back in the 90's, addresses were handed out like candy. IBM got their allocation in the late 80's. I worked for a couple of small and mid-sized companies that had /16's and larger. And we barely used a fraction of that space. I have a /24, personally, registered back in 1993. It's routed to my home network. I know several other folks who were on the early internet, and had t…
What is bad is ipv4 doesn't have enough space for everyone. Time to move onto ipv6. I don't know how to make that happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the point is that they're not using it. If it's not addressable from the internet, why not use 10.0.0.0/8 instead?
It's not relevant whether or not it's accessible from the internet. And that 9/8 allocation predates RFC1918 by at least four years.
IBM is basically hoarding a bunch of addresses where there's no technical reason to. I get that they aren't required to do anything about it, but it does seem topically relevant.
I don't understand why was the next version of IP not just identical to IPv4 but with more bits in address space? Were they trying to do too many things at once in the 90's?
I don't think it not being that harms it as much as people think. It has to require updates for everything either way, people by and large don't care about "oh but it's only a small total breakage, going to jump on that then". On the other hand, yes, there certainly was some "we break everything anyways, so lets 'improve' things", combined with those improvements being designed at the wrong time, with assumptions tha…
We will probably use IPv4 for decades more. It's going to be even slower with constrained semiconductor pipeline.
That's why we have squatters and expensive IPv4 blocks.
> over 16% of all of the non-RFC1918 space is suspected squatted DoD space!
Well, I’m entirely willing to believe the US DoD is one of the few entities that have more than 2^23 computers they want to be mutually addressable, so the RFC 1918 space is just too small for them if they are to run IPv4.
In fact - DoD should just have it's own internet - that is completely separate. I'd argue that DoD networks should not have any connectivity with broader internet, making their use of the whole 32 bit space completely independent from everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it not being that harms it as much as people think. It has to require updates for everything either way, people by and large don't care about "oh but it's only a small total breakage, going to jump on that then". On the other hand, yes, there certainly was some "we break everything anyways, so lets 'improve' things", combined with those improvements being designed at the wrong time, with assumptions tha…
IPv6 suffers the classic "we didn't think of thaaaaat" syndrome. We will probably use IPv4 for decades more. It's going to be even slower with constrained semiconductor pipeline. That's why we have squatters and expensive IPv4 blocks.
But I think we would also be in that situation if it were just IPv4-but-bigger. The main problem is incentives, and they wouldn't change through that.
I think this is good. If these guys hoard ipv4, corporation will be forced to ipv6. Isn't that a good news?
I know a number of IPv6 activists that are hoarding IPv4 address space with that in mind. Market forces will eventually provide compelling incentives once we have exhausted the easily accessible types of CGN magic.
US Department of Defense has 14 /8 blocks. You'd have to wonder what they do with that large number of public IPs. Sure, some companies have large blocks but that's nothing compared to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By analogy, domain squatting isn't using a domain that isn't yours, it's underutilizing a limited resource that's assigned to you. Using IPs for internal networking doesn't necessarily mean under utilizing though; but might not be enough to justify such an assignment today.
I dont disagree, there might-should be clawback provisions for those legacy allocations. But how do you define 'use' they could easily 'use' them by simply announcing them via BGP and null routing the traffic to the IP's they don't want exposed? The end answer is still IPv6, where everyone can have as much or as little IP space as they want.
Can they make a plausible spreadsheet showing use. But, clawback of IP allocations is very rare, even for allocations that were made with agreements allowing it. There's some high profile cases relating to fraud, but otherwise nope. Legacy allocations would be nice to clean up, but if it's not voluntary, it's not happening. And at this point, if it happens, it's probably going to be a sale rather than a return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect. ISPs should use NAT. Users should pay for their own address if they desire.
I'd rather the ISP pushed for IPv6.