2 edits | Wasteful If IANA would revoke the /8 subnets of HP, Ford, Apple, Eli Lily, etc., there would be plenty if IPv4 addresses to go around. There's no reason these companies need an entire /8 subnet of publicly addressable IPs.
»www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ | |
|
 |
 | | | Re: Wasteful I agree that IPv6 is the future. However, there's no good reason for there to be a shortage of v4 addresses if they weren't being wasted. | |
|
| |  PToN
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX | Re: Wasteful I dont think it would delay it, in fact, it would make the adoption of IPv6 faster since the big boys will have to adopt it. Revoking /8 from them would force them to adopt IPv6, therefore, starting mass migrations to the new standard. | |
|
| bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | And why does the Post office need a /8 - seriously?? | |
|
| | | | Re: Wasteful said by bn1221:And why does the Post office need a /8 - seriously?? You think that is bad, look at 45/8. That assignment is for The Interop Show, a series of conventions that are held around the world. It isn't even a permanent network.
--
Kilroy was here | |
|
| | |  heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Re: Wasteful said by NetAdmin1:said by bn1221:And why does the Post office need a /8 - seriously?? You think that is bad, look at 45/8. That assignment is for The Interop Show, a series of conventions that are held around the world. It isn't even a permanent network. What is 45/8? I understand /8 is CIDR. Is 45 the first octet?
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Wasteful said by heat84:What is 45/8? I understand /8 is CIDR. Is 45 the first octet? Correct, 45/8 is CIDR notation for the network 45.0.0.0 with a subnet mask of 255.0.0.0. It could have been written 45.0.0.0/8, but you can discard the trailing zeros in CIDR notation, so 192.168.1.0/24 could be written as 192.168.1/24 or 10.0.0.0/8 can be written 10/8.
--
Kilroy was here | |
|
| |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | o_O you got me | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| While they're at it, make any university that firewalls connections anyway switch to local IP addresses. my school has a /16 (not as big of a deal vs. a /8 but still) and I'm guessing that *maybe* a class C of that is visible to the outside world through the firewall. Take my school (138.67.0.0/16) and give it a /20 (or, heck, a /19) and there's some free space right there. It would also push places like that to work on IPv6...generally academia has so many IPs that IPv4 is how they roll...exclusively. | |
|
1 edit | They can't... Those are legacy assignments. They were made before the current RIR setup was created where netblocks were allocated to RIRs and then assigned to end users. IIRC, those assignments are technically the property of the company holding them. It is a byproduct of a time when it was never expected that we would have the number of devices connected that we do now.
--
Kilroy was here | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 edit | Re: Wasteful cant the regulators of the addresses simply change the rules and make the blocks no longer property of said companies? i take it there is no form of Emanate Domain on IP blocks lol. | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: Wasteful said by Noah Vail:These IP blocks can certainly go back into the pool. Stanford turned theirs back in (37.x.x.x or thereabouts) Nothing came to a crashing halt. NV I'm not saying anything will come to crashing halt.
Stanford willing turned their netblock back over to IANA. That's different than IANA trying to reclaim the netblocks. The assignments are such that they belong to those companies and IANA would have to ask for them back. Whether they get them back or not is up to the owner of those netblocks.
--
Kilroy was here | |
|
| |  Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN | I think it's a 'prestige' thing. For instance MIT has a /8 and Purdue only school has 3 class B blocks IIRC.
Nobody wants to give away their shiny reservations. As a result, there is no nat'ing, just a firewall, and every workstation gets an IP that a small/medium business would love to own. | |
|
| | Wasn't there an unintended positive impact of this shortage?
The NAT requirements made routers common place in most homes.
I am sure you remember the days for scanning Brighthouse IP ranges for \c$ shares. | |
|
 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter
1 edit | Maybe not, but who cares? Of course, they got the addresses before anyone thought that the number of addresses could become an issue.
Anything that encourages moving to IPV6 sooner is a GOOD thing.
In fact, I would even be so bold as to suggest that ISPs should be banned from using NAT on their networks (customers of said ISP could still use NAT with their routers and home networks of course). While I know that this would undoubtedly accelerate consumption of remaining IP addresses, anything that increases the pressure to move to IPV6 sooner, is a good thing. We are seriously overdue on this.
In seriousness, I'm loathe to seriously suggest that ISPs ought to be banned from that, since I don't usually like to say that a business ought to be run in a certain way. I doubt that would work well anyway. It would cause certain services to fail, for one thing.
Y2K deja vu, anyone? That's my prediction. | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | I know a multinational clinical testing laboratory company that assigns public IPs to all their internal PCs. But the public IPs are not routable, and all the PCs go through a SOCKS proxy to talk to the outside world *facepalm* | |
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Wasteful said by patcat88:I know a multinational clinical testing laboratory company that assigns public IPs to all their internal PCs. But the public IPs are not routable, and all the PCs go through a SOCKS proxy to talk to the outside world *facepalm* There's a reason they do this sort of thing. It's called planning for the future. If two organizations were to merge, and happened to use the same private network numbers, what then? Do you want to renumber tens of thousands of devices? It makes much more sense to have a globally assigned unique id.
Besides, reclaiming all of the legacy addresses that are potentially reclaimable (as in that it might be politically possible to convince, and somehow we find the money to reimburse the owners for their costs in renumbering) wouldn't buy us much time at the current rate of use. Perhaps a year or a year and a half. Problem is that we'll have run out before we see any results from reclamation efforts if the allocation numbers hold for the rest of the year.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | interesting enough is NAT is the biggest hole for IPv6, how do you handle IP6 at the home level? right now i have a private LAN, nobody on the outside can see my PS3, Xbox, 5 computers, etc.
with IP6 you dont use NAT how does one make computers talk to eachother without bringing the outside network into it and would each device in the house have to have its own public IP6 address?
of course that brings another issue, right now people get one IP from their ISP, homes would need a bunch of them if they cant use NAT and would ISPs be willing to let people have say 20 IPs for the current price of one?(i know IPv6 allows each person to in theory have 100+ IPs of their own.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|  NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Wasteful said by Kearnstd:interesting enough is NAT is the biggest hole for IPv6, how do you handle IP6 at the home level? right now i have a private LAN, nobody on the outside can see my PS3, Xbox, 5 computers, etc. with IP6 you dont use NAT how does one make computers talk to eachother without bringing the outside network into it and would each device in the house have to have its own public IP6 address? of course that brings another issue, right now people get one IP from their ISP, homes would need a bunch of them if they cant use NAT and would ISPs be willing to let people have say 20 IPs for the current price of one?(i know IPv6 allows each person to in theory have 100+ IPs of their own. Yes, because IPV6 allows for exponentially more possible public routable IP addresses. | |
|
|
|
·
