bit-tech.net

Help - We've Run out of IP Addresses!

Comments 26 to 50 of 63

Reply
paisa666 3rd June 2011, 15:21 Quote
Really not much else to say here, except to agree that anyone who thinks IPv6 wont happen its loss, its a reality, and more than that, a need.

Besides the needs, come the oportunities, interwebs comunities are growing and people wanting to get out there and be heard also grows, just imagine the posibilites of every person with its own public ip address, no more web hosting, that's old, that's history, you will own you space in the INTERWEBS!! and you will be able to do whatever you want with your own space... AWESOME!!
Adnoctum 3rd June 2011, 17:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehBoris

Printer, Xbox, PS3, DS, any computer running XP that doesn't have IPv6 installed (it isn't by default).

Ultimately you are correct in that it is a software issue and hardware doesn't matter when it comes to IPv6 support, but what it comes down to is if the manufacturers of devices that only support IPv4 going to provide a update for them to enabled IPv6? In most cases probably not.

How many of these are you still going to be using 10 years from now?
If the original Xbox is any example, the Xbox Live and PSN support for these consoles will end a few years after the consoles are discontinued.
How many computers running Windows 98 are you using, because 10 years from now we'll be looking at XP in the same way we look at W98 now. No one will be using XP for an online box (I have a W98 box that I like to use for the occasional old game, but I wouldn't take it online).

As to the second point, it is quite irrelevant I'm afraid. Any manufacturer not supporting IPv6 is going to find themselves sidelined, corporate suicide at its best. There is no commercial sense for ANY manufacturer to ignore IPv6, for the simple reason that there won't be any market for IPv4-only going forward.

It isn't going to be like 32bit/64bit support for example. For the average user (especially in the corporate environment) there is not compelling difference between them. 64bit offers no performance advantage and 2/3GB of RAM is more than enough, while the disadvantages are still numerous. But even then, 64bit penetration is growing steadily and all processors (certainly x86) are now x64 capable (I think the single core Atom was the last hold-out).

In contrast, the take-up of IPv6 is going to be rapid because the need is very much forced. As the article has said, there are places on the Internet where IPv6 is now a critical necessity not a geeky plaything. This necessity is going to spread rapidly. ISPs are going to be FORCED to adopt IPv6 once they find that they can no longer add new users and grow their business. The major network owners will do this first (by these I mean the telecommunications companies that own the physical media), and the smaller ones who utilise them (will be forced to follow or find themselves cut off. Once they do, they will FORCE their users to implement IPv6. Not ask, force. There will be no ability to choose to stick with IPv4. What you do on your own network is your choice, but your gateway will be IPv6 or you won't have ISP access.
faugusztin 3rd June 2011, 17:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
How many of these are you still going to be using 10 years from now?
If the original Xbox is any example, the Xbox Live and PSN support for these consoles will end a few years after the consoles are discontinued.

Actually, he talks about XBOX360 and PS3. But bringing IPv6 to these consoles is rather a issue of workforce (they don't really care about it now).
OCJunkie 3rd June 2011, 18:24 Quote
Support for older devices will likely never be implemented as there's no profit in that; it's in manufacturer's best interest to release their next products with IPv6 instead of rettrofitting, forcing you to upgrade when it becomes a necessity. There's no reason for them to increase the longevity and support of a product when it's a clear opportunity for new sales.
tehBoris 3rd June 2011, 18:56 Quote
Some one some where will still be using IPX, NetBEUI and other 'dead' protocols. They won't ever die fortunately, particularly with IPv, it's really not an issue. Getting non-TCP/IP based networks on to the internet isn't exactly straight forward. As mentioned previously IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4, as such it's just a case of not expanding the use of IPv4 any further and just adopt IPv6. Every thing will keep working, no one will care.
Sloth 3rd June 2011, 19:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Actually, he talks about XBOX360 and PS3. But bringing IPv6 to these consoles is rather a issue of workforce (they don't really care about it now).
Adnoctum was still on the money. Brining IPv6 support to the 360 and PS3 is pointless if Xbox Live and PSN no longer support them as those features are required for online play. No way to play online, no IP issue.
Adnoctum 3rd June 2011, 21:52 Quote
I was referring to the Xbox 360, and using the original Xbox as a supporting example. Support for the Xbox on XBL ended last year, three and a half years after the console was discontinued. I imagine something similar would occur at the end of the Xbox 360/PS3/Wii life. No device is supported in perpetuity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehBoris
Some one some where will still be using IPX, NetBEUI and other 'dead' protocols. They won't ever die fortunately, particularly with IPv, it's really not an issue. Getting non-TCP/IP based networks on to the internet isn't exactly straight forward. As mentioned previously IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4, as such it's just a case of not expanding the use of IPv4 any further and just adopt IPv6. Every thing will keep working, no one will care.

If they are, they probably have more problems than dealing with IPv6.

I wasn't sure so I looked it up on Novell's site, but they suggest the same solution for IPX as for IPv4, namely IPX-address-mapping and tunnelling (IPv6 handily has a header extension already in place for IPX-tunnelling! Somebody has been thinking about it). Seeing as NetBEUI uses TCP/IP at the very least mapping or tunnelling should work.

You can stick with IPv4 if you like, but you won't be getting any new IP addresses (so no expansion of your network) and some services are now making use of IPv6 to avoid IPv4 routing issues, so you won't be able to use them either.

Seriously, unless your doomsday machine is on a dead-man switch which triggers a "critical event" if it is taken off your antiquated, legacy network, you should be investing in new network infrastructure by now.
leexgx 4th June 2011, 17:56 Quote
thing is PS3 DS xbox are all normal NATed devices (behind an router) so ipv6 is not really applicable for them unless your only getting IPV6 connection (not in the UK yet most will be IPV4/6 when it comes untill they really do run out of ipv4 adresses)
Rich_13 4th June 2011, 21:21 Quote
Leexgx how many customers (and other things like software packages) can have issues because of NAT? I think IPv6 will be a big plus for consumers and consumer products and their ease of use..

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ipv6 keeps a list of some ISP's with Native IPv6 already.
Bakes 4th June 2011, 22:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehBoris
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Show me a device at your home with no IPv6 support. Home users are pretty much totally prepared for IPv6, it is the network infrastructure of the Internet itself which here and there have old IPv4 only hardware.

Printer, Xbox, PS3, DS, any computer running XP that doesn't have IPv6 installed (it isn't by default).

Ultimately you are correct in that it is a software issue and hardware doesn't matter when it comes to IPv6 support, but what it comes down to is if the manufacturers of devices that only support IPv4 going to provide a update for them to enabled IPv6? In most cases probably not.

True, but very few home devices connect to the internet directly. They connect through a router. The IPv6 can go as far as the router - past then it can go through IPv4 if devices are not ready, because what tends to happen is network address translation.
play_boy_2000 4th June 2011, 23:11 Quote
I have my CCNA + 5 years in the telecom industry (a far cry from a network expert, but not a n00b by any standard) and tbh IPv6 baffles me. I understand that the design of IPv6 was chosen for a lot of good reasons, but all of those reasons should have been second to backwards compatibility and simplicty.

I'm predicting that if push comes to shove, many ISPs will simply start selling low end residential services as NAT only (grandma dosn't need a pubic IP...), rather than moving to IPv6.
Volund 4th June 2011, 23:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000
I have my CCNA + 5 years in the telecom industry (a far cry from a network expert, but not a n00b by any standard) and tbh IPv6 baffles me. I understand that the design of IPv6 was chosen for a lot of good reasons, but all of those reasons should have been second to backwards compatibility and simplicty.

I'm predicting that if push comes to shove, many ISPs will simply start selling low end residential services as NAT only (grandma dosn't need a pubic IP...), rather than moving to IPv6.

a lot of it makes sense to me, but the decision to use hex and colons has screwed up my ability to quickly enter IP's.....
tehBoris 5th June 2011, 01:32 Quote
Is ::1 easier to type than 127.0.0.1? Similarly, it's entirely possible to have a network address like ::F. It can be better for the purposes of typing addresses, on the internet this will probably never be the case.
l3v1ck 5th June 2011, 02:54 Quote
I just find the new address formats confusing.
faugusztin 5th June 2011, 03:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
I just find the new address formats confusing.

And our parents find computers confusing. And their parents find VCR confusing. And their parents found XY confusing.

It's called progress, live with it.
ssj12 5th June 2011, 13:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Actually, he talks about XBOX360 and PS3. But bringing IPv6 to these consoles is rather a issue of workforce (they don't really care about it now).
Adnoctum was still on the money. Brining IPv6 support to the 360 and PS3 is pointless if Xbox Live and PSN no longer support them as those features are required for online play. No way to play online, no IP issue.

the 360 and PS3 still have at least 3 years left of life. And XBL and PSN support will not die for years after that. XBL for the original xbox was only discontinued like last year.
leexgx 5th June 2011, 17:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich_13
Leexgx how many customers (and other things like software packages) can have issues because of NAT? I think IPv6 will be a big plus for consumers and consumer products and their ease of use..

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ipv6 keeps a list of some ISP's with Native IPv6 already.

then you must be using routers that have issues with routers that you have used, replace the router with an dif brand problem solved (things like Xbox ps3 DS DSI and so on are allways going to be behind an NAT/router device)

kudos for link thought
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ipv6
tehBoris 5th June 2011, 17:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
(things like Xbox ps3 DS DSI and so on are allways going to be behind an NAT/router device)

Not necessarily. NAT was developed because of the limitations of the IPv4 address space. it was the original intention of the people who designed IPv4 protocol that every device would have a public IP address. IPv6 would allow us to do this.
leexgx 5th June 2011, 19:52 Quote
but currently that's how it works and it works well 99.9% of the time (just the odd router that implement's NAT incorrectly fix for that is just buy an new router or even better buy one that supports DD-WRT firmware that should support IPV6 but i guess its better if the underling hardware supports it natively) (DIR-615 is less then £10 good spec as well)
tehBoris 5th June 2011, 20:32 Quote
It would be nice if ISPs would offer up to (say) 10 IPs per account for IPv6 service. That way a user can select weather or not to assign a public IP address to a device. Could even have a setup where some devices have public IPs and others do not.
Xlog 5th June 2011, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehBoris
Not necessarily. NAT was developed because of the limitations of the IPv4 address space. it was the original intention of the people who designed IPv4 protocol that every device would have a public IP address. IPv6 would allow us to do this.
This won't happen, because:
a) IP dresses are not free, someone will need to pay for them, that's usually the consumer, do you want to pay extra for every network-enabled device you have?
b) Not all devices need to have a public IP, original Ethernet designers probably did not think we would have network-enabled light-bulbs.

At the end of day majority of home users don't even need a private IP.
tehBoris 5th June 2011, 23:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog
This won't happen, because:
a) IP dresses are not free, someone will need to pay for them, that's usually the consumer, do you want to pay extra for every network-enabled device you have?

IPv4 internet IP addresses are so 'expensive' because availability is low. IPv6 has such a large address space that, by equivalent, a single IPv4 address is worth 7.9x10^28 IPv6 addresses. They are massively cheaper, there is no reason (besides 'good business') not to give people multiple IP addresses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog

b) Not all devices need to have a public IP, original Ethernet designers probably did not think we would have network-enabled light-bulbs.

At the end of day majority of home users don't even need a private IP.

That much is true, but there is no reason they should not with IPv6.

The original creators did not realize that every house would have more than one computer, which is why IPv6 was created. With IPv6 there is enough address space for every person in the world (currently) to be allocated at least 1,000,000,000 IP addresses each.

Most universities where assigned class B blocks at the beginning of the internet. They where literally given them and paid nothing for them and still do not pay any thing for them. As such it is still common practice at universities to give each computer (including printers and cameras etc.) a public IP address. This is how the internet was originally intended to be setup.

Also, Microsoft operates a free IPv6 tunneling service. That is to say they give every computer it is installed on a public IPv6 address. Admittedly there are running costs associated with this service, but they almost certainly pay nothing for the actual IP addresses. Though, come to think of it, they might have had to pay for them initially. But each address is worth such a small amount of money that you would probably have to use standard form with a large negative exponent to express it efficiently.
Xlog 6th June 2011, 00:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehBoris
IPv4 internet IP addresses are so 'expensive' because availability is low. IPv6 has such a large address space that, by equivalent, a single IPv4 address is worth 7.9x10^28 IPv6 addresses. They are massively cheaper, there is no reason (besides 'good business') not to give people multiple IP addresses.



That much is true, but there is no reason they should not with IPv6.

The original creators did not realize that every house would have more than one computer, which is why IPv6 was created. With IPv6 there is enough address space for every person in the world (currently) to be allocated at least 1,000,000,000 IP addresses each.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nanobots.png

tehBoris 6th June 2011, 00:12 Quote
Forgot about that one, so ye, the number IPv6 addresses is the equivalent to 40% the number of molecules that make up the Earth, or some thing like this.
Xlog 6th June 2011, 00:38 Quote
Just thought of this:
If we are to give each device a Private IP and we want to do without a global DHCP server (which would be an interesting feat in itself), that would mean:
Each hotspot would need to have a pool of IP addresses for all theoretical clients.
Each corporate body would need to have a couple times bigger IP pool than it has employees.
Each ISP would need to have some IPs in reserve, not to mention unused IPs of subscribers (lets say 10IP/subscriber).
Each managed switch, router, etc gets a private IP.
And so on.
How long until we end up in the situation we are today? Just because you can't imagine a situation when we use up the resource, doesn't mean that situation is not achievable, we have plenty of examples of this happening in tech world.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums