This is topic IPv6 in forum Math-a-holics and Code Junkies at The Geek Culture Forums.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on February 14, 2011, 12:05:
____ This keeps coming up much like Y2K did twelve years ago, So far I have learned that IPv4 is going to run out.
____ So from our vast collection of knowledgeable people are we all doomed ?? Do we need tinfoil hats, solar umbrellas, lead lined underwear, stand by generators and wood piles, safe water, and stock piled food.
____ Snaggy and Nitro we need a new cartoon, B4IPv6
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on February 14, 2011, 12:59:
Sorry, MoMan...but I don't think it's going to be quite that extreme.
More likely, the upcoming shortage of numbers will both:
a) Force increasingly large groups of people to adopt IPv6
b) Create an aftermarket for IPv4 addresses, and may result in blocks of unused, but allocated, addresses being freed up (and resold at a premium)
I suspect the latter is more likely to happen in the near term, as most people (myself included) are still scratching their heads about IPv6. I definitely need to get up to speed on it (all I'm really familiar with is the mind-boggling 2^128 figure & hex addr. scheme), but I'm pretty sure half my gear can't use it, and I don't know if my upstream is ready.
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on February 14, 2011, 13:02:
Short term: get people to hand back addresses they're not using.
In the early days, some organisations claimed quite large address ranges, basically one per computer that thought they might one day have. These days, with most internet access through NAT routers, that's not necessary. A whole office full of computers can appear as one IP address to the outside world, you don't want every PC having an IP address visible to the big bad internet, it's a security risk.
Reclaiming some of those unused addresses from the early squatters should buy us some time, but we'll need to find some way to motivate overworked network administrators to do it.
Long term: with the trend towards internet-connected phones, cameras, fridges, toothbrushes.... 2^32 addresses just aint gonna be enough. 2^128 is about 2^95 per person on earth, should be enough for a while,no matter how many iToothbrushes we all buy.
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on February 14, 2011, 15:41:
____ You mean Hoover Dam is not going to fail, the power grid go up in smoke, cars crashing in giant fire balls, sky scrappers lighting up like giant candles. The great lakes going dry. Shucks!!
____ I guess I will have to go back to listening for birds (Sats.) I heard the ISS this morning. Right now I have three receivers and two transceivers all hooked up to separate computers to capture all of the down links.
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on February 14, 2011, 17:25:
These days, with most internet access through NAT routers, that's not necessary. A whole office full of computers can appear as one IP address to the outside world, you don't want every PC having an IP address visible to the big bad internet, it's a security risk.
Actually...not entirely the case. NAT is generally considered to be a bad thing in many networking circles. NAT is not /really/ what's protecting the clients - it's the SPI functionality that's essentially inherent in everyday NAT. SPI can just as easily be deployed in a 1:1 IP scenario with IPv6; it has also been suggested that the 2^128 'namespace' will almost eradicate port scanning, which is the other common explanation for NAT's benefit.
That being said...if every smartphone didn't get its very own WAN IP (while on 3G), a whole lot of IPs could be freed up. (This could /either/ be done with a lot of NAT, -or- IPv6 on them [with 6-to-4 tunneling].) That, and it occurs to me that there are probably large pools of IPs still allocated to dialup ISPs that are completely irrelevant. Still, that's extremely short term, as 'the cloud' is creating a whole new market for more IP connectivity, and that's not going away anytime soon.
With over 6 billion people in the world, and fewer than 4.3 billion IP addresses, IPv4 is sadly at the end of its feasible run. The funny thing is, recent talk has said that Vint Cerf didn't foresee the need for so many addresses. That's only half true - I attended a talk he gave, and I seem to recall that what he said was that 4.3 million addresses was more than enough for the *experimental* network they were working on. That experiment was clearly an astronomical success, and like all the other 'beta' things out there, it didn't get a chance to be fully future-proofed before going out the door.
© 2015 Geek Culture
Powered by Infopop Corporation