Time for IPv6 baby.
We won't see IPV6 for the next 10 years or so.
No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
31–40 of 48 posts
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#32Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#33What are the practical consumer-level implications of this? My understanding is that every internet-enabled device needs a unique IP address. If there are no more unique addresses, can no more devices connect to the internet in this region?
ISPs could start putting users behind a giant NAT. One cable company used to do it in Brazil back in the 2000's
That's bad practice and complexifies a lot the creation of peer-to-peer infrastructures.
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the next big step for ISP's is to provide IPv6-only native service to their clients, and add IPv6-to-IPv4 gateways to allow access to IPv4-only internet Isn't that pretty much how DS-lite works?
Sort of. DS-Lite involves a Carrier Grade NAT as well. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanisms for all the different possible mechanism devised so far. Edit: for my money, NAT64 + DNS64 would get us 90% of the way there. OS support for pseudo-IPv4 would really fix this 100%: if the application wants to talk IPv4, the OS would transparently translate it into an IPv6 address in the 64:ff9…
Take a look at https://github.com/ayourtch/nat46 - I've coded it primarily for OpenWRT (so it requires forwarding), but the core portion is usable in userland as well - so I have this crude hack (https://github.com/ayourtch/example-nat46/) to get something-of-a-CLAT running on OS X with zero changes to the nat46-core.[ch] code - I literally sync them between the two repos periodically.
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
See T-Mobile's latest presentation for details on 464: https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2359 Personally, DS-Lite seems cleaner but I don't think it's worth arguing about.
> See T-Mobile's latest presentation for details on 464: https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2359 From slide 8: > Mobile networks don’t use DHCP, so no way to setup MAP or DS-lite without some heavy lifting in protocols and standards Why can't the handset itself do the DS-lite IPv4 NAT/encapsulation, or why is 464XLAT easier to do on handset than DS-lite? edit: found this gold-nugget of a slide: http://i.imgur…
Why can't the handset itself do the DS-lite IPv4 NAT/encapsulation, or why is 464XLAT easier to do on handset than DS-lite?
Yeah, I've made exactly the same argument. As you found, there's a lot of history here. As I remember it, T-Mobile was originally pitching NAT64 because it required no support on the phone at all and DS-Lite would require the phone to do encapsulation. People pointed out that DS-Lite supports v4-only apps and NAT64 does not, but it seems like T-Mobile chose not to hear that argument. Then, having already committed to the NAT64 route, they added a stateless NAT46 agent on the phone to fix v4-only apps.
I think that agreeing on a standard is more valuable than continually iterating towards perfection, so I wish the industry had just declared DS-Lite "good enough" and stopped, but now we have this menagerie of transition schemes.
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#36I don't have a good feel for the numbers involved here. Things like this always report: "We are out!... only 4,000,000 or so addressed remaining!" Four million sounds like a lot to me. Some number of the IP addresses that are counted as gone are also still unused. Can someone give me some idea of the situation with numbers that are easier to understand? Can we still limp through for a few years, or is this actually t…
It does seem a bit anti-climactic. "We're out! We only have a /10 remaining, and we'll only be handing out /24 - /22 allocations!". Which does seem an awful lot like "flowing freely" (I'd be happy with just a personal /27 myself) until you put it in context with those early non-aggregable /24 allocations in 192/8 being generally viewed as a mistake for router memory, and the subsequent move to only give out portable allocations to larger service providers.
IMHO all of the IPv4 exhaustion articles are basically scaremongering attempting drive adoption ahead of the real pressing need. Which isn't the worst goal, as it encourages people to become familiar (have YOU setup a tunnel from he.net, sixxs, or with 6to4/miredo and started playing around?). But I suspect we'll be hearing variations on the same "we're out! (but not really out)" story for the next 5 years at least.
But besides a larger address space, v6 doesn't really give new features (besides plausible deniability of what constitutes a host address) and just adds to packet overhead. So the only compelling reason will be the ever growing number of endpoints that are v6 only, and behind NAT (from businesses who decide that providing v4 addresses to new customers by default is too expensive). Other businesses wanting to better serve/track those customers (avoiding NAT64 etc) will then finally have a real reason to treat IPv6 as a first class concern.
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#37In US many ISPs are too lazy to move to IPv6.
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#38[deleted]
> Most homes and even many businesses probably don't need a unique IP. The answer is then not IP but port scarcity. Depending on home activity, I have 100~400 sessions open on my router. This means as an ISP you can only have so much customers (10~50?) behind a single IP and assume reliable operation. With the growth in number of devices and online services, this is only bound to grow and is thus not a viable solutio…
Yes but those sessions can all share a single source port, assuming they are all to different destination IPs/ports. (TCP session identity is determined by both the source and destination ports and IPs.)
IIRC most web browsers do not open more than 2-4 simultaneous connections to a given server. So an allocation of ports an order of magnitude larger than that should suffice for a typical home user.
(Not that I'm advocating such crazy NATing!)
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#39In US many ISPs are too lazy to move to IPv6.
Which ISPs? Most of the large ones already support it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#United_States
Re: No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
#40In US many ISPs are too lazy to move to IPv6.
Which ISPs? Most of the large ones already support it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#United_States
Verizon and Optimum for example don't have IPv6 support so far.
Note that your link says something about trials / tests and so on. Many did that, yes, but not all of them actually deployed IPv6 in result.