That's it folks, last of the IPv4 blocks are gone

[aidanjt]

Address allocation kicks off IPv4 endgame

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has assigned two large blocks of IPv4 addresses to the Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre, activating a rule under which the agency will give out the last of its IPv4 addresses.

The rule states that when only five large blocks of IP addresses remain, one will be handed out to each of the world's five regional Internet registries. With the latest allocation to APNIC, the number of remaining IP address blocks is down to five.

IANA is expected to assign the remaining blocks within a matter of days or less. After that, the regional bodies will have no higher source of addresses to turn to when they have assigned the addresses they hold.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...f_IPv4_endgame

There you have it.

[format]

Will there be much of a fuss switching over to IPv6?

[aidanjt]

Will there be much of a fuss switching over to IPv6?

The biggest problem is that most customer premise equipment doesn't have IPv6 support because ISPs weren't thinking ahead when they were buying the equipment.

[Grey M@a]

The biggest problem is that most customer premise equipment doesn't have IPv6 support because ISPs weren't thinking ahead when they were buying the equipment.

Which is where the problem begins. IP6 has been around for a fair few years now and ISP's went the cheap route instead of planning for the future.

[Disturbedguy]

Aren't there still like 6 million addresses available?

[Moby-Dick]

the problem is that 6 million isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.

[Biscuit]

is appalling that it has come to this when a perfectly viable solution has existed for so long

[TheAnimus]

is appalling that it has come to this when a perfectly viable solution has existed for so long

I assume you mean NAT

Ok, I'll say it. So What.

My mum and dad for instance don't need a publicly visible IP, they would be MUCH safer without one, which is funnily enough why they run behind an old itx board running m0n0wall.

Many net users don't want or need a public address, why give it to them.

P2P is a bug bear of mine because most of the time its wholey inefficent (upstream at home is about 1.5mbit/s vrs 8 down) multicasting stuff makes more sense. Also don't get me started on the inherient flaws in BitTorrent protocol, clemidia, fix gear bikes, new labour and the daily mail are popular, that does not make either good or fun.

For times when its needed, the average family I'm talking here, I would have thought plenty of ISPs can NAT without too much overhead the users. It will also give them an ability to upsell which is quite important in the world of UK broadband providing.

So myself I don't care.
(should point out I have my class C still )

[aidanjt]

You'll probably care when the internet moves to IPv6, and you can't communicate with new machines which can't have an IPv4 address because the pool ran dry.

[Biscuit]

I assume you mean NAT

Ok, I'll say it. So What.

My mum and dad for instance don't need a publicly visible IP, they would be MUCH safer without one, which is funnily enough why they run behind an old itx board running m0n0wall.

Many net users don't want or need a public address, why give it to them.

P2P is a bug bear of mine because most of the time its wholey inefficent (upstream at home is about 1.5mbit/s vrs 8 down) multicasting stuff makes more sense. Also don't get me started on the inherient flaws in BitTorrent protocol, clemidia, fix gear bikes, new labour and the daily mail are popular, that does not make either good or fun.

For times when its needed, the average family I'm talking here, I would have thought plenty of ISPs can NAT without too much overhead the users. It will also give them an ability to upsell which is quite important in the world of UK broadband providing.

So myself I don't care.
(should point out I have my class C still )

So rather than moving to the more flexible IP standard you think they should flog the dead horse even more?

Alternatively they could move to the new standard anyway to free up the pool and start offering a NAT facility to customers using the safety advantages as advertising? Personally i think NAT is a totally different discussion as even if they do use it, IPv4 will still run out once everyones fridge gets 3G.

[aidanjt]

Or, the routers firewall can just reject all incoming connection attempts by default, have the same security, without any of the cheaping out and screwing up on global addressing.

[Spud1]

So rather than moving to the more flexible IP standard you think they should flog the dead horse even more?

Alternatively they could move to the new standard anyway to free up the pool and start offering a NAT facility to customers using the safety advantages as advertising? Personally i think NAT is a totally different discussion as even if they do use it, IPv4 will still run out once everyones fridge gets 3G.

It's not about not wanting to move to IPV6 - I think anyone tech savvy will agree that its the best way forward, but the fact is that the majority of smaller ISPs (aside from the white labellers) can't even support IPV6, let alone the consumers themselves with routers/modems that can't do it.

NAT offers an interim solution that will tide many people over until people are IPV6 ready - I would expect the larger ISPs to move towards IPV6 and to start sending out equipment that will work for it, but for the majority it will be natted IPV4..as it works for 99.9% of cases and is a heck of a lot cheaper.

[Biscuit]

It's not about not wanting to move to IPV6 - I think anyone tech savvy will agree that its the best way forward, but the fact is that the majority of smaller ISPs (aside from the white labellers) can't even support IPV6, let alone the consumers themselves with routers/modems that can't do it.

NAT offers an interim solution that will tide many people over until people are IPV6 ready - I would expect the larger ISPs to move towards IPV6 and to start sending out equipment that will work for it, but for the majority it will be natted IPV4..as it works for 99.9% of cases and is a heck of a lot cheaper.

But my point is IPv6 has been around for a long time, its not a particularly new technology. Its a complete joke that we let the pool get so flooded before people started to act. Now because there has been no movement in that direction we are forced into the interim solution which is less than ideal.

The smaller companies may have an excuse for lack of adaptation however the bigger ones should have started to make a move or at the very least raise awareness a long time ago.

[oolon]

The "problem" is businesses got evolved not academics, ask yourself so my company use a protocol that most other businesses don't support now (and many new devices don't support out of the box), just because we will have to support it one day, but we are not sure when that day is? To be honest most businesses don't need to do much at all if they use a web proxy, there firewall, mail and perhaps VPN servers are IPv6, there is little need for there internal networks to be converted any time soon. Many old devices will not be upgradeable like printers, WiFi access point etc, so an IPv4 management lan will be needed for some time. Even if hosts are converted, this doubles the complexity of a business which is why it has been avoided until now. I expect to see ISPs that offer dynamic addresses to use NAT and static IP customers will pay for the privilege. The is a big question with IPv6 will customers still use an internal NAT, does the ISP hand out a netblock so things are routable (firewall issue with this), what happens if customers change ISP, what happens if customers want more than one ISP, most end customers are better off behind a NAT that allows them to setup their network as they like and change providers without having to re-address everything or worry about the moving of net blocks. They are not in the business of routing other peoples traffic.

[TheAnimus]

You'll probably care when the internet moves to IPv6, and you can't communicate with new machines which can't have an IPv4 address because the pool ran dry.

In that case yes, but if we shift all the Sky/BT/Zen customers onto a NAT system we could easily free up hundreds of blocks.

I'm not saying I 'like it' just that its cost effective. Most home users don't want to have to pay for this extra kit the ISPs haven't bought yet.

Why should they? If they don't need their own IP why allocate one. That would help the hosts live on for a lot longer, and we can transistion later.

[aidanjt]

In that case yes, but if we shift all the Sky/BT/Zen customers onto a NAT system we could easily free up hundreds of blocks.

Why bother? You're just putting off the inevitable and screwing up network management even more than they already have, at the same time. We've already stretched out IPv4 to breaking point, that's why we're in the position we're in now of a last desperate scramble to getting IPv6 rolled out. It should have been done 5 years ago, never-mind now.