Topic 'Re: It'll be a slow process' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22572516 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:31:53 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:31:53 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22578980 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22578980 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:24:55 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577158 said by maartena:

Actually, the U.S.A. has about 40% of the worlds IP addresses, and we as a country have plenty of IPv4 addresses for the next 50+ years.
ARIN has less than a year's supply of addresses. Luckily IANA has not yet run out.

If you are talking about reclaiming addresses, that's a legal minefield, not to mention a technical one. There is a finite limit to the size of the routing table the Internet's backbone routers can handle. Without significant renumbering, which would end up being just as painful as a switch to IPv6, the routers would fall over.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577158 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:16:05 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577143 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. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577143 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:13:22 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577074
For that matter my dumb devices on my Cell or Wimax could use IP6 since I never see the Ips on them anyway....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577074 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:57:54 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577028 said by Kearnstd:

but if IPv6 is as big as they claim each house could in theory have 15 or so each without a problem even on an ISP as large as Comcast.
That is the general idea.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577028 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:50:25 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577023 said by maartena:

said by vpoko:

But it's got to get going, we WILL run out of IPv4 addresses real soon.
Actually, the U.S.A. has about 40% of the worlds IP addresses, and we as a country have plenty of IPv4 addresses for the next 50+ years.

There are many other countries, ESPECIALLY in Asia and Africa, which are now emerging internet markets that will have problems. There are quite a few ISP's already that are IPv6 ready in China, Japan, South Korea.

At some point however, we will need to convert over to IPv6. But the world isn't going to end in the U.S. if it takes us another 10 years or more.
50 Years? At the rate at which everyone wants their own blog? You've gotta be kidding.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577023 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:49:46 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577017 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577017 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:48:59 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577007 --
»davescustompc.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22577007 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:46:26 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576937 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. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576937 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:29:15 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576856 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576856 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:13:28 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576842 --
»davescustompc.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576842 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:09:30 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576674
but if IPv6 is as big as they claim each house could in theory have 15 or so each without a problem even on an ISP as large as Comcast.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576674 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:15:27 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576578 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. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576578 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:34:12 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576576 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. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576576 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:31:47 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576492 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22576492 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:48:35 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22574647 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22574647 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:46:49 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22574097 said by vpoko:

But it's got to get going, we WILL run out of IPv4 addresses real soon.
Actually, the U.S.A. has about 40% of the worlds IP addresses, and we as a country have plenty of IPv4 addresses for the next 50+ years.

There are many other countries, ESPECIALLY in Asia and Africa, which are now emerging internet markets that will have problems. There are quite a few ISP's already that are IPv6 ready in China, Japan, South Korea.

At some point however, we will need to convert over to IPv6. But the world isn't going to end in the U.S. if it takes us another 10 years or more.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22574097 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:48:55 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573781 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573781 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:46:30 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573655 --
»davescustompc.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573655 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:28:57 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573637
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573637 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:26:51 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573617 --
»davescustompc.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573617 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:22:55 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573562 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573562 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:13:38 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573400
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573400 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:45:38 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573181 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573181 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:08:29 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573149 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573149 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:03:38 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573054 --
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22573054 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:49:54 EDT Re: It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22572982 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Itll-be-a-slow-process-22572982 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:39:16 EDT It'll be a slow process http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Itll-be-a-slow-process-22572516 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Itll-be-a-slow-process-22572516 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:16:32 EDT