bit-tech.net

Help - We've Run out of IP Addresses!

Comments 51 to 63 of 63

Reply
tehBoris 6th June 2011, 15:22 Quote
With regards to IP address assignment: Each ISP will take care of it's customers, just like they do now.

Been able to assign 1,000,000,000 to each person currently in the world (approx ~7,000,000,000) and still have a massive chunk left over isn't enough?
Sloth 6th June 2011, 20:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
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.
Discontinued for financial reasons. Microsoft had no reason to discontinue service until the fans slowly faded away and there was no benefit in providing service.

Add a little incentive and MS/Sony can start making some more muscle moves. Certainly both would love to drop "legacy" support and force more people to buy into the latest generation, this provides an easy way to do that because they can counter any claims of greed with reasons of IPv6 compatibility.
cebla 7th June 2011, 03:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Rogers25


Tibby you made a good point about countries, but you need to think bigger, you need to think planets. One of the principles that form the basis for creating this range was how long it would last, there are lots of factors in that, population growth, device density, average number of devices per person, complexity of IC networks growing, and the last one, moving to other planets. Sounds like science fiction I know, but it may not be.

Imagine the latency of that....
play_boy_2000 7th June 2011, 04:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cebla
Imagine the latency of that....

Havn't you heard of subspace communications? With a few relay stations you can have real time conversations over thousands of light years ;)
VintageWillis 8th June 2011, 02:47 Quote
What ever happened to IPv5?
tehBoris 9th June 2011, 22:55 Quote
It didn't.
Vadoff 11th June 2011, 04:33 Quote
I don't like those hexidecimals...

I'm not really educated on the subject, so can someone explain to me why they can't just add another 6 numbers to the current IP4 system?
192.111.133.231 --> 192.111.133.231.534.443

Wouldn't that add another 100 quadrillion or so possible IP's? It'll look much nicer too.
Vadoff 11th June 2011, 05:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog
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.

Umm, well. It's 340 UNDECILLION dude.

Even if we were to give every man, woman, child, baby, and grandmother 100 ip's of their own, that would mean that there would be 3.4x10^36 people that we could give it to. Assuming that the max population that the Earth can sustain will cap out around 15 billion, that means that we would need 2x10^26 planets/colonies, each with a population of ~15 billion people to run out of ip's.

There's only around 500 billion planets in the galaxy. So that means we would need to colonize 4x10^16 galaxies.

There's only around 100 billion galaxies in the universe, meaning we would need to colonize another 400,000 universes... which as far as we know is impossible, unless you're speaking of parallel universes/other dimensions/etc.

So yeah, that's probably not going to happen for at least another 10+++ millennia, if ever. A time length so large that you'd have to be pretty arrogant to say humanity would be continuing to use it that far from now.
tehBoris 11th June 2011, 14:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadoff
I don't like those hexidecimals...

I'm not really educated on the subject, so can someone explain to me why they can't just add another 6 numbers to the current IP4 system?
192.111.133.231 --> 192.111.133.231.534.443

Wouldn't that add another 100 quadrillion or so possible IP's? It'll look much nicer too.

They increased the size of each number as well as adding on additional numbers. So in order to type a IPv6 address in decimal you would end up typing some thing like 53464:43650:37857:43650:37857:43650:37857:37857.

Since an IP address is just a number, you can just have them completely in decimal and most applications will work. http://3626153261/
Vadoff 13th June 2011, 03:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tehBoris
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadoff
I don't like those hexidecimals...

I'm not really educated on the subject, so can someone explain to me why they can't just add another 6 numbers to the current IP4 system?
192.111.133.231 --> 192.111.133.231.534.443

Wouldn't that add another 100 quadrillion or so possible IP's? It'll look much nicer too.

They increased the size of each number as well as adding on additional numbers. So in order to type a IPv6 address in decimal you would end up typing some thing like 53464:43650:37857:43650:37857:43650:37857:37857.

Since an IP address is just a number, you can just have them completely in decimal and most applications will work. http://3626153261/

I see. I already know that hexadecimals offer more numbers than decimal, I'm just wondering why they can't keep it in decimal since it's much easier to remember, read/write down. Even adding 3 additional digits should give us plenty of IPs (1000 times more than we have currently, 1,000,000 times more with 6); I don't understand the need for hexadecimals since it's not like we need that absurd undecillion amount of IPs anyways.
Zoon 13th June 2011, 08:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog
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?
Yes they are. All you have to do is request some from your ISP giving a justification for it and you can have them. Some ISPs will charge an administrative fee for doing this some won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadoff
I don't like those hexidecimals...

I'm not really educated on the subject, so can someone explain to me why they can't just add another 6 numbers to the current IP4 system?
192.111.133.231 --> 192.111.133.231.534.443

Wouldn't that add another 100 quadrillion or so possible IP's? It'll look much nicer too.
Not sure if you're being facetious - if you are, then - if not, then its to do with binary maths. An IP address in its current form is a 32bit number - 4 x 8bit octets - and there's only space in the IP packet for an IP address of that size. So that means you have to bin off large parts of the IP protocol anyway to make it accept the IP address. If you're gonna do that you may as well increase to 128bit to give a ridiculous amount of IP addresses. So they did.
Woodstock 27th June 2011, 15:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadoff
I don't like those hexidecimals...

I'm not really educated on the subject, so can someone explain to me why they can't just add another 6 numbers to the current IP4 system?
192.111.133.231 --> 192.111.133.231.534.443

Wouldn't that add another 100 quadrillion or so possible IP's? It'll look much nicer too.

As said by zoof, its based on binary math 32bit = 2 ^ 32 = 4294967296, 128bit = 2 ^ 128 = 34028236692093846346337460743176811456. Additionaly decimal numbers suck for computers. A binary(base 2) number takes 1 bit to represent, an ocatal (base 8) take 3, hex (base 16) takes 4 and decimal (base 10) takes 3 (cant have part bits, there binary values).

Decimal imho was a bad decision for ipv4 address. Additionaly the reason to grow ip address by an additional 2 powers of two (or even 1) is based on storing the number in cache and registers, and being to apply instructions effiecently to them.

The seperators exist for two main reasons, human readability and the ability to use bit masks to seperate the network and host portion (routing).
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.

No its not backwards compatable, he said that was the route not taken. An ipv6 machine cannot talk to an ipv4 machine (and vice versor) nativly. You need some sort of 4 to 6 tunnel, which I suspect most commodity routers will do in the future. You either need a tunnel or to run a dual stack machine to communicate across versions.
tehBoris 27th June 2011, 21:34 Quote
255 = 0xFF = 0377

Number representation used is fairly irrelevant.

IPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv4. It has the whole IPv4 range reserved for this purpose. You may or may not need to use to gateway to contact a device on an IPv4 network, this is contextual. If you try to go to a IPv6 address that is in the IPv4 reservation your OS should automatically know to try and send that request out as IPv4 if it is on the correct subnet or has a route to it. If it does not have IPv4 configured or does not have a route for the requested address, it will send the request to it's default IPv6 gateway hoping that this can take care of it. In all likely hood, this is likely to never bother any one.
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