modifiy
join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN | reply to vpoko
Re: It'll be a slow process
No we wont. NAT has saved us from getting close to running out. 40% of IPv4 is still unused. We have a while before we even get close. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| we could reclaim a ton of IPv4 if a few select groups would give up their multiple unused blocks. dont some if the big corporations and Universities have a few million unused IPs that they gained the blocks for back when the net was being built and will never use.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
modifiy
join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN
 ·Qwest.net
 ·Comcast
| Yes. A lot of companies and Universities early to the game Got class A addresses. Most of them don't come close to using those spaces and most even use private IPs for most things. I'm sure if we really hit the wall with addressing it would come to a point where they would say give up your unused space. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
1 edit | reply to modifiy
said by modifiy  :No we wont. NAT has saved us from getting close to running out. 40% of IPv4 is still unused. We have a while before we even get close. NAT was never a good solution and isn't acceptable for whole classes of devices. Now, IPv4 gives us a little less than 4.3 billion (that's short billions for our non-US posters) IP addresses. According to the CIA World Factbook, the world population is 6.7 billion. Just wait until the developing world starts coming online. Not to mention the fact that tons of electronic devices that never needed IP that all of a sudden will (think TV's, media players, cell phones, video game consoles, smart fridges, etc), and it's not unreasonable to assume that the average person could need 3, 4, or more IP addresses. There is an EXPLOSIVE growth in IP address demand right around the corner, 40% of our IPv4 addresses being free right now won't mean a thing. |
|
modifiy
join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN
·Qwest.net
·Comcast
| I disagree. NAT was a very good solution. If it wasn't for this solution we wouldn't be talking about going to IPv6 chances are we would already be there or much further in the process. NAT absolutely change the ip addressing game. They said we would run out of addresses in/before 2000 and we are still have about 40% free.
Right now there are roughly 1.5 billion online in the world. There are defiantly more devices then humans online by that count. I agree it's not unreasonable for the average Joe to need 3+ online devices, but its also unreasonable to think that each one of those devices will need it's own public IP address. Most things work fine with private ip and NAT.
Yes we will run out of addresses at some point, but it has and will take longer than what people think. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| reply to modifiy
Why does Ford need 19.0.0.0/8? There are a ton of other non network companies out there with /8 networks. I can at least see why Apple and IBM grabbed up /8 networks but neither of them use the networks for anything other than what 10.0.0.0/8 is intended for. |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to vpoko
Every device in a single household, MOST devices you mentioned soon needing an IP can be Natted..seriously where do people come up wit this stuff? The problem is as stated /8 blocks unused and being sat on for no good reason. Think about it. EVERY household could have ONE ip and NAT ALL HOUSEHOLD DEVICES...Even WIRELESS CARRIERS could NAT. CABLE companies do on the C0 int....
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Oh yeah, I love not being able to run servers because of NAT.
No thanks, NAT was always a temporary solution that handicapped access to the internet, and I for one am glad it won't be part of IPv6. |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP.
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Hangmn :Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP. Fair enough. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to vpoko
said by vpoko :Not to mention the fact that tons of electronic devices that never needed IP that all of a sudden will (think TV's, media players, cell phones, video game consoles, smart fridges, etc), and it's not unreasonable to assume that the average person could need 3, 4, or more IP addresses. I am currently using 12 IP addresses; however, I really only need 2 publicly routeable IP addresses. Not really sure I'd like the NAS, or HR-21 on the public Internet.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :Every device in a single household, MOST devices you mentioned soon needing an IP can be Natted..seriously where do people come up wit this stuff? The problem is as stated /8 blocks unused and being sat on for no good reason. Think about it. EVERY household could have ONE ip and NAT ALL HOUSEHOLD DEVICES...Even WIRELESS CARRIERS could NAT. CABLE companies do on the C0 int.... No, the problem isn't the unused /8s at all. There aren't that many sitting around unused to be reclaimed. We go through a whole /8 every few months at this point. Forcibly reclaiming them would buy us a year or two at best.
NAT is terrible. It breaks or makes more difficult everything from VoIP to gaming to p2p to home automation. It's a crappy solution that never should have been and should have outlived its usefulness about 5 years ago when ISPs should have already moved to IPv6.
v4 is history whether you or anybody else likes it or not. Even the big operators have finally gotten on board. It's just a matter of time now.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :Not really sure I'd like the NAS, or HR-21 on the public Internet. That's what a firewall is for.
The nice thing about that is then the device can easily and without conflicting with other devices open the ports it needs using UPnP. Currently if you have two devices that need the same port you're SOL if you have the usual single dynamic address.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to wierdo
I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math.
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Hangmn :I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math. It's going to probably take those 10 years to get everyone over to IPv6. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math. No, simple math tells us we can't. At the current rate of usage the free pool will be exhausted in one to two years. Reclaiming all /8s would give us perhaps one more year. There are currently 47 remaining unallocated /8s. If those will be allocated in two years, as the best estimates indicate, what good will reclaiming all of the 37ish legacy /8 allocations (most of which are in use, mind you!) do us? Buy us another year?
That makes about as much sense as delaying the DTV transition did.
Your estimate is off by nearly an order of magnitude. Perhaps you should not talk of simple math when you cannot perform simple math yourself?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| I simply disagree, I STILL come across networks where EVERY device has a ROUTABLE IP instread of a natted address. Please there are Admins out there, apparently you as well, who do not understand 1 to many....
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
| reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP. The average household, which may now see up to 4 or more computers in a house running multiple torrents, games, voip, etc. could easily bring any consumer level router to its knees with PAT.
Likewise, any large scale corporation with 100-1000 computers minimal, would run out of ports VERY VERY quickly.
NAT has its advantages for local based networking. Ports which need to go out can be routed just fine; additional IPs do help when you have more than one device that needs to respond to public port 80 request.
NAT, however, is a handicap solution. It was meant to stifle growth of IPv4 usage (which it admittedly did) and it gave end users an opportunity easily implement their own home networks.
Certainly helped many corporations and universities as well who certainly saw no problem consuming their 10.0.0.0 blocks, which is probably half the problem: They saw NAT as a solution and didn't cough up their unused IPs. Therefore, you've got thousands of IPs in use by single entities perpetually going to waste.
IPv6 offers an extremely wide array advantages over IPv4 and NAT or PAT, especially considering the fact it would certainly lighten the load on any consumer level router and the simple fact that it would not suffer the same limitation of PAT and NAT in that no port forwarding would be required.
Now not to say IPv4 should be entirely eliminated. Definitely not. I can't begin to imagine what would happen if someone suggested even the thought of such. IPv4 will still be necessary as 90% (more likely 99%) of consumer devices don't even support IPv6. Hell, even pfSense doesn't offer native support for it nor does DD-WRT on most devices it supports. Tomato is practically a niche market compared to DD-WRT. OpenWRT and such are even less of a market. The simple fact is that an IPv6 switchover needs to be coordinated and handled, certainly a lot better than the DTV switch over at that.
For example: As was with the DTV switch over, devices not supporting IPv6 out the box need to be clearly labeled. Consumers need to be made aware of what IPv6 is and its contrast to IPv4. 90% of the people on this mass of land called the USA won't even know what IPv4 is, where there in your problem will lie. Those same 90% and then some will have older routers that will not support IPv6, where in one of two things will need to happen: A mandate for all current market level devices to be updated with IPv6 support (yeah, government interfering in private company matters, blah blah blah), and a mandate that all future devices support IPv6.
Another reason IPv4 will need to remain available to all is the simple fact that many consumers can't use IPv6 since their applications don't support it. I've seen thousands of people playing older games or using older software that have no chance of ever seeing an update to support IPv6. That is unfortunately just the way the market works.
It is for the reasons outlined above in regards to both hardware and software that people simply will need to have both IPv6 and IPv4 available to them. |
|
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | reply to vpoko
Why does my phone need a non 10 or non 192 address
For that matter my dumb devices on my Cell or Wimax could use IP6 since I never see the Ips on them anyway.... |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by bn1221 :Why does my phone need a non 10 or non 192 address Perhaps so your mail server can connect to it and tell it that it has new mail, amongst other things.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
