This article is focused on the US, a country which was never really going to feel the brunt of the IPv4 crunch. For an example of a real victim, look at Qatar, a country which only has a single IP address for the entire country (everyone sits behind a NAT): https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Qatari_proxy_IP_address_tempora... [0] Whenever someone from Qatar decides to vandalize Wikipedia, Wikipedia is forced (temporarily)…
How could NAT work for an entire country of people behind one IP? My understanding was that NAT allows communication over separate ports, so for example a router with ip 123.45.67.89 can run three clients by sending their data over ports 50000, 50001 and 50002. How does this work when more than 65k people are trying to connect? There don't seem to be enough ports for that to be possible.
This article is focused on the US, a country which was never really going to feel the brunt of the IPv4 crunch. For an example of a real victim, look at Qatar, a country which only has a single IP address for the entire country (everyone sits behind a NAT): https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Qatari_proxy_IP_address_tempora... [0] Whenever someone from Qatar decides to vandalize Wikipedia, Wikipedia is forced (temporarily)…
Qatar has a huge allocation of unused IP addresses. It's a matter of choice that their censorship proxy only exposes one IP address on the internet side.
This article is focused on the US, a country which was never really going to feel the brunt of the IPv4 crunch. For an example of a real victim, look at Qatar, a country which only has a single IP address for the entire country (everyone sits behind a NAT): https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Qatari_proxy_IP_address_tempora... [0] Whenever someone from Qatar decides to vandalize Wikipedia, Wikipedia is forced (temporarily)…
What is the IP address, then? I got lots of different answers while googling. Is it still a range (they rotate through their allocated space), or do my googling skills just stink?
This article is focused on the US, a country which was never really going to feel the brunt of the IPv4 crunch. For an example of a real victim, look at Qatar, a country which only has a single IP address for the entire country (everyone sits behind a NAT): https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Qatari_proxy_IP_address_tempora... [0] Whenever someone from Qatar decides to vandalize Wikipedia, Wikipedia is forced (temporarily)…
How could NAT work for an entire country of people behind one IP? My understanding was that NAT allows communication over separate ports, so for example a router with ip 123.45.67.89 can run three clients by sending their data over ports 50000, 50001 and 50002. How does this work when more than 65k people are trying to connect? There don't seem to be enough ports for that to be possible.
This is a dramatic simplification, but TCP uses the quadruplet of source IP/source port/dest IP/dest port as a session identifier, so you can potentially get 2 billion people using one outgoing port to 2 billion different servers with different IPs in the absolute best case (which wouldn't happen, of course).
This article is focused on the US, a country which was never really going to feel the brunt of the IPv4 crunch. For an example of a real victim, look at Qatar, a country which only has a single IP address for the entire country (everyone sits behind a NAT): https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Qatari_proxy_IP_address_tempora... [0] Whenever someone from Qatar decides to vandalize Wikipedia, Wikipedia is forced (temporarily)…
How could NAT work for an entire country of people behind one IP? My understanding was that NAT allows communication over separate ports, so for example a router with ip 123.45.67.89 can run three clients by sending their data over ports 50000, 50001 and 50002. How does this work when more than 65k people are trying to connect? There don't seem to be enough ports for that to be possible.
that limit only happens when 65k people try to use the same remote ip, otherwise the distinction can still be made for tcp streams.
This is basically how it should work. Prices rise until alternatives become worth thinking about.
that's the economic way of thinking. the engineering way would be to fix the artificial scarcity by implementing a technically superior solution.
But the 'superior solution' is... well, 'sort of', from the economic point of view in this case: it has costs that are, for some people, higher than those of the alternative.
This article is focused on the US, a country which was never really going to feel the brunt of the IPv4 crunch. For an example of a real victim, look at Qatar, a country which only has a single IP address for the entire country (everyone sits behind a NAT): https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Qatari_proxy_IP_address_tempora... [0] Whenever someone from Qatar decides to vandalize Wikipedia, Wikipedia is forced (temporarily)…
I can assure you the US is feeling the brunt of the IPv4 crunch. I'm building something that needs massive amounts of public address space and I simply can't get IPv4 addresses for it. I've asked multiple providers. You are LUCKY if you can get a /28 at this point. Hoarding. Rolling with IPv6 instead. I get you have an interest in the Qatar/Wikipedia situation, but it seems to be unlikely due to IP address resource m…
I know of multiple providers who have gotten allocations in the last month (up to /19) and will be requesting another one myself in the near future. ARIN has plenty of IPs.
This is an extremely US-centric article. ARIN was never in as dire straits as the other RIRs. In Europe and Asia the situation is much worse. For example, lack of IPv4 addresses delayed DigitalOcean's growth in Amsterdam, and carrier-grade NAT is already being used by some consumer ISPs in Europe and Asia.
ARIN requires the demonstration of need before it allocates space. RIPE does not, it's just first come, first serve. I'm not sure about APNIC or LACNIC, and since AFRINIC is modeled heavily off of ARIN, I think they require need too, but things are so fucked over there I have no idea if that policy transferred.
Customer applications which require IPv4 and haven't been upgraded to support IPv6 still need a v4 address, and customers probably have to support their own clients that only use v4. You still have to ship the customer both L3 protocols. So the carrier would at least need to ship a NAT'd v4 address; v6-only would basically frustrate/anger/alienate a whole lot of customers, which is dumb from a making-money-with-my-co…
No. You provide the best service to your customers for the best price. For DO's case, default to IPv6 and charge extra for each IPv4 address used. Currently, they charge $5/month for their cheapest droplet. Change that to $4/month and charge an extra $1/month for an IPv4 address. This way if my setup is more complex than a single droplet running everything, I can save some money on VPS's that don't need public IPv4 a…
It won't help. If they charge $4+$1, it would not be seen as "they just changed the price structure". It would be seen as "they are charging for something that used to be free". Especially as marketing folks won't miss the chance of advertising "our package is now $4" small print "( additional charges apply)". And most customers will be royally pissed at that, both by the fact that they got advertised $4 but have to pay $5 and by the fact something that used to be free now isn't. The fact that the whole package costs the same won't matter, people don't think in those terms. And then it would get the neutrality angle - they now charge extra for using specific protocols! we warned about this and now it happens! - and the whole thing would become a huge mess.