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

We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

arin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#91

Post by teddyh »

nknighthb wrote: post #85
teddyh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might think such a scheme is "requisite", but the fact remains that there is insufficient incentive for the ISPs to do them, and they plainly don't do them, as my cited example shows. You can assign blame however you like, but it won't help your IPv6 customers/users to reach your servers.

I really don't know what your example shows, because I don't read Swedish, and the Google translate version is predictably mangled and difficult to parse. To the extent it says anything, it's very vague and seems to recount a single, unique incident. This and your apparent inability to provide case studies in English leads me to the belief that the problem is rare. I'll also add that I've been in the employ of a comp…

If you have experience with Asian ISPs, could you then maybe report on how common it is for them to have IPv6-only versus IPv6-plus-transition-mechanism?

This data would be better than my anecdotal story about an unnamed company, so please provide any you have.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#92

Post by belorn »

valisystem wrote: post #76
belorn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such policy would lead to an explosion of fragmented patterns in routing, expanding the global routing table. That mean latency and costs would go up while throughput would go down. If I remember right, there doesn't exist hardware for backbone networks that can handle a fully fragmented global routing table at the required speed of today. They are thus unlikely to also handle the increased speed of tomorrow without…

Making ipv4 a second class citizen working like an low performance compatibility layer for legacy seems like a great migration plan to me. Especially if performance would go down progressively.

The backbone network is unlikely separated by hardware for IPv4 and IPv6. If one drains resources, the other gets effected.

They could start to charge differently for IPv4 traffic and IPv6. If peering Terms of IPv6 interconnection agreements was free/radically lower than ipv4 (by say, increasing ipv4 charge rate), ISPs would see a direct encouragement to move to ipv6. Its not a unique concept, as similar suggestion has been made in 2011 (http://www.canscouncil.net/presentations/CANS2011/china_ipv6...)

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#93

Post by bloopletech »

What's the time lag until we run out of IPv4 addresses at the VPS/hosting provider and broadband ISP level?

I see the situation getting progressively more dire, and presumably these notifications are there to try and get people moving to avoid the wall; but assuming everyone keeps operating as close to the status quo as they are able, how long before we truly hit the wall?

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#94

Post by masklinn »

300bps wrote: post #89
masklinn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a ton of /8 still assigned to companies that don't need them. You've got no idea how they're structured internally. Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable, they don't "need" them but they do use them and they're part of their network architecture.

They are using 16,777,214 IP addresses? I think that's quite a stretch. I work at a company that has 19,000 employees with locations all over the world. We couldn't make a dent in 16.7MM routeable IP addresses.

> They are using 16,777,214 IP addresses?

No, they are using their block and their network strategy is predicated upon having an essentially infinite set of IP addresses available.

> I work at a company that has 19,000 employees with locations all over the world. We couldn't make a dent in 16.7MM routeable IP addresses.

Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#95

Post by teddyh »

bloopletech wrote: post #93

What's the time lag until we run out of IPv4 addresses at the VPS/hosting provider and broadband ISP level? I see the situation getting progressively more dire, and presumably these notifications are there to try and get people moving to avoid the wall; but assuming everyone keeps operating as close to the status quo as they are able, how long before we truly hit the wall?

http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2013-08/when.html

Currently the estimate indicates September 2014.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#96

Post by 300bps »

masklinn wrote: post #94
300bps wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are using 16,777,214 IP addresses? I think that's quite a stretch. I work at a company that has 19,000 employees with locations all over the world. We couldn't make a dent in 16.7MM routeable IP addresses.

> They are using 16,777,214 IP addresses? No, they are using their block and their network strategy is predicated upon having an essentially infinite set of IP addresses available. > I work at a company that has 19,000 employees with locations all over the world. We couldn't make a dent in 16.7MM routeable IP addresses. Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to s…

Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers.

I would ask you to please note that there are non-routeable addresses that can be used for these purposes. You do realize that the /8 they've been granted is a public Internet netblock? You realize that 99.999% of the world doesn't use public Internet addresses on their employee's workstations or internal servers?

But for the sake of argument let's assume Ford (one of the owners of a /8) has 200,000 employees and that each of them is using 10 public IP addresses. That's 2MM. Then let's assume they have 10,000 servers and each one is taking up 100 IP addresses. That's another 1MM for a total of $3MM which is less than 1/5 of the addresses they're currently allocated.

Oh, and Ford only has 164,000 employees and I guarantee that each employee isn't even using 1 public IP address let alone 10. And 10,000 servers with 100 public IP addresses is just as ridiculous. Do you see now how wasteful it is that certain organizations have these /8s?

Beyond that, it really sounds like you don't know the difference between a public and private IP address. If for no other reason, places like Ford should have been using private IP address space for internal servers and workstations for security purposes.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#97

Post by nknighthb »

teddyh wrote: post #91
nknighthb wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know what your example shows, because I don't read Swedish, and the Google translate version is predictably mangled and difficult to parse. To the extent it says anything, it's very vague and seems to recount a single, unique incident. This and your apparent inability to provide case studies in English leads me to the belief that the problem is rare. I'll also add that I've been in the employ of a comp…

If you have experience with Asian ISPs, could you then maybe report on how common it is for them to have IPv6-only versus IPv6-plus-transition-mechanism? This data would be better than my anecdotal story about an unnamed company, so please provide any you have.

In my experience? Exactly 0% of ISPs are strict IPv6-only. That doesn't mean there isn't one anywhere, we don't have millions of users throughout the continent, mostly Taiwan and (to a lesser extent) China. But we've yet to find one.

When I say the issue has not arisen, I mean it. We have two infrastructures, one is basically 8 years old, the other is about three. At the time the latter was setup, our provider wasn't even ready to deploy IPv6 widely, they were still learning and testing with a handful of select customers.

Both legacy and modern run solely on IPv4, and we've not had cause to revisit the issue.

When we get reports of network problems not attributable to simple user error, the cause is almost always either misconfigured routers breaking path MTU discovery, or ridiculously strict firewall rules that don't even allow port 443 out.

I don't even know how many of our users have IPv6 at all. I have no reason to know nor any good way to measure it short of calling all the ISPs or sending people to our customer's homes to check.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#98

Post by ethomson »

300bps wrote: post #96
masklinn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are using 16,777,214 IP addresses? No, they are using their block and their network strategy is predicated upon having an essentially infinite set of IP addresses available. > I work at a company that has 19,000 employees with locations all over the world. We couldn't make a dent in 16.7MM routeable IP addresses. Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to s…

Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers. I would ask you to please note that there are non-routeable addresses that can be used for these purposes. You do realize that the /8 they've been granted is a public Internet netblock? You realize that 99.999% of the world doesn't use public Internet addresses on their employee's workstations or int…

No, it does not sound like the parent doesn't know the difference between public and private IP addresses.

What it sounds like is that you expect Ford to take the time and energy to renumber their entire network just because they presumably don't need a /8. And while it's true that they probably don't need a whole /8, making them renumber is ridiculous.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#99

Post by 300bps »

ethomson wrote: post #98
300bps wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers. I would ask you to please note that there are non-routeable addresses that can be used for these purposes. You do realize that the /8 they've been granted is a public Internet netblock? You realize that 99.999% of the world doesn't use public Internet addresses on their employee's workstations or int…

No, it does not sound like the parent doesn't know the difference between public and private IP addresses. What it sounds like is that you expect Ford to take the time and energy to renumber their entire network just because they presumably don't need a /8. And while it's true that they probably don't need a whole /8, making them renumber is ridiculous.

I just knew someone was going to totally change the argument. The argument I was replying to was that they use 16.7MM addresses. I proved that there is no way they use 16.7MM addresses.

So either you didn't read the original argument, or you just like to argue so you are now changing the argument. In either case, I'll bite.

Nobody is asking Ford to be altruistic about this. Right now their /8 has some value. They have a lot of options, not the least of which is to suballocate it for a tremendous amount of money. That's a given - they could probably also come to an arrangement with IANA/ARIN to just sell a part of it back. They'd make a tidy sum in any case. The alternative is the status quo. In 10 years their /8 will go from being worth a lot of money to being worthless. After all, what value would 16.7MM addresses have after IPv6 is fully implemented with its 2^128 addresses?

Companies renumber all the time. And let's be honest... how much renumbering would they really have to do? That whole fantasy land that "every employee must be using multiple public IP addresses" is just plain silly.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#100

Post by btilly »

rgbrenner wrote: post #44
btilly wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is now a 60 day payment window that wasn't there before. And a review of previous procedures that could result in various minor revisions. So it is different, but not a lot different.

The 60 day payment window was added in phase 2

Oops, the order didn't match up.
Post reply on HN