New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Still a big difference from providers trying to hoard because they are trying to grow their business compared to hoarding for hoarding sake with no intention to use it.
As @Spirit says if you want to be a provider that needs IP addresses then you need to do what you can to secure them, thus ensuring you can grow, not defending anyone as such, I just think the focus should be towards those who are not using and not intending to use the massive space they have.
http://www.paritynews.com/2012/09/17/331/department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession-of-169-million-unused-ipv4-addresses/
Hey the UK gov has a /8 for the benefits office ;-). Good business to keep them though
There have been several posts in this thread regarding organizations with large IPv4 address allocations that are underutilized. The message is that recovering and reallocating the unused IP addresses could make a significant difference.
My response is that from the big picture point of view, recovering underutilized IPv4 address allocations won't help much. It may postpone the inevitable by a year or two in the most optimistic scenarios, but the truth is that IPv4 address depletion is upon us, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Pardon me, that's nonsense. 185,000 of those 185,000 employees can - and should - be NATed. As for their real needs, even a /22 would probably be oversized.
And while governments generally have a tendency to waste, the problem is the usa because they for a long time considered the internet "theirs". Accordingly us-american companies, universities, gov, mil, are about the biggest IP4 wasters on the planet. (Note: This is no attack on the usa. It just so happens it was them. uk, China or whoever would have acted the same way I guess).
Maybe, just maybe, the current move of truly internationalizing the control over resources will bring positive change. I personally think that anyone with a net bigger than, say, /20 should a) be given ample time to change (say, 12 months) and b) be forced to reasonably justify their IP4 need. Pepsi, to pick up that example again, should have taken away 95% of their (ca.) 2 x /16 ... and the IP4 problem would be solved.
As for the spam, depending on your MTA you should be able to filter out (at least most of) the spam. Although, of course, that unfortunately doesn't save the wasted traffic.
Or so it is said.
I disagree. There are ca. 4 billion IP4 addresses. The usual calculation goes like "Oh, but there are already more people than that on this planet!". And that's nonsensical reasoning.
Fact is, the vast majority of those 7+ bln. people are end users and can be NATed. There are public and private ranges for a reason. And the good thing is that the private ranges can be multiplied endlessly.
Even using todays yesteryear standard NAT equates to enlarging the number of computers that can be connected from 32 bit to 48 bit which means ca. 65,000 times todays public IP4s.
There is a reason for the long processes with and the slow take-up of IPv6. Without boring you with tech. details, one reason is that currently used processors have to do extra steps to work with 128 bit units, completely new - and way more complex! - ASICs must be designed, masked out, tested, produced, etc.
Unfortunately there were too few techies and too many corp. and gov types in the gremia who, of course, wanted IPv6 for their very own reasons. What we should actually have developed is sth. like "IP5" with 64 bits (which is a well handleable size) which would have solved all problems. Moreover a reasonable solution would have todays IP4 space a part of the new scheme (similar to ASCII being the first 256 chars in the vast Unicode space).
And that's what pi--es me off. We will have a "solution" that leaves much to be desired but the corporate guys are happy because IPv6 is first and foremost a major money making scheme.
12 months? That's a joke for any enterprise.
Legacy IP space can't be revoked as it would be much more costly than just slowly migrating to IPv6.
Nope. Not a joke if they properly used DHCP.
If, for instance Pepsi has an even just average capable IT team that should not at all be a problem.
Moreover: Your way of looking at it seems to favour the corps. There is another side, too, however, namely millions and millions of people who are starving IP4 addresses.
In the end it's the (not so) good old game of 99% paying for the convenience of the 1%. Time to change that.
I don't think that's funny.
Simple: Who should have some million IP4 addresses - you providers or corps and gov?
@bsdguy makes some interesting points, but I would rather see the time, effort, and money invested towards moving forward to IPv6 solutions. It is obvious that dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 will be needed in the short term, but the goal should be to evolve to independence from IPv4 as quickly as we can. It will take years, no matter how much incentive there is.
I hope that the change is comparable to the television broadcast standards change from analog to digital that happened a few years ago, but it is hard to say whether the example can be applied to IPv4/IPv6. We will find out soon enough.
IPv6 has been hyped endlessly. Yet the uptake has been hesitating and slow.
There are reasons for that. In fact, IPv6 is such an ugly beast that even "With IPv6 everyone can have a gazillion IPs!!!" has largely failed (which is very bad sign. Usually when promising sth. for free they storm your door).
IPv6, to just name a few issues, is hard to memorize and looks strange to most people. It changes - without solid need - well known and established mechanisms. Also, IPv6 is grossly oversized and at the same time unnecessarily complex. Those who took it up early had too use crutches and tricks for years and, importantly, very many perceive IPv6 as the price tag for "I want a /24 for myself" at home; and noticing what an ugly and hefty price tag (also in terms of learning) IPv6 is they discover that, oh, NAT ain't that bad, after all.
And, just btw. when dealing with gazillions of packets the difference between 2 x 64 bit ("IP5") addresses (src. and tgt.) and 2 x 128 bit IPv6 addresses is very significant. Particularly compared to IP4 the difference is 4 times the (usually expensive) memory.
And what for? Because corporations and agencies can't be asked to stop grossly wasting IP4? Because 4 bln times the address space of IP4 isn't sufficient? Bullsh-t!
@bsdguy 's points about the deficiencies and difficulties of IPv6 are well stated, and for the most part, true. Nonetheless, it is being deployed in the real world. At some point, there will be a sufficient number of popular existing services that support IPv6, along with a critical mass of hot new IPv6-only services that will drive demand. That demand will open up new opportunities for products and services to make IPv6 deployment easy for those who are not technologically savvy.
We are not there yet where IPv6 will be as plug and play as IPv4, but progress is being made. No matter how valid @bsdguy 's arguments, at the end of the day they will not effect change. The IPv4 ship has sailed. It is time to move on.
Hoster: You can have 2 million IPv6 for free!
Customer: How much is an extra IP4?
Hoster: 2$ per month. But you can get yet another 2 million IPv6 for free for a total of 4 million IPv6!
Customer: OK, please add 1 extra IP4. I'll pay the 2$/month.
THAT's a typical conversation today.
Funny thing: If IPv6 is the best thing since slice bread, why then did most telcos und ISPs take up IPv6 only hesitatingly? And many still don't talk about, even less recommend it.
That's important because the telcos/ISPs are basically the only way to rape and force feed IPv6 down customers throats. And they seem not too eager to do that. Of course, they'll also be the idiots who will have to pick up the costs (billions of $ globally) for support. Because, guess what gazillions of Johns and Maries will do? They'll ring the support lines.
@mpkossen, this has gone wayyy off topic. Please sink or change name since recent posts have nothing to do with ChicagoVPS.
For one time, I have to agree with @CVPS_Chris
If you guys want to discuss other matters, feel free to open a new topic. This should maybe be closed.
Strange. If I were in Chris' shoes I'd rather feel relieved ("as long as they talk about no matter what but not bad about my company ...")
@bsdguy the thread is constantly trending so it adds visibility to the OP, which Chris obviously doesn't want.
Changing the title wouldn't be good since the OP still stands, but closing this now that the discussion has diverted so much seems reasonable.
There could be some value still left in the discussion so I have sunk it rather than close.
I created a new discussion for IPv4 / IPv6. Those who are interested can move there:
http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/41445/combatting-ipv4-depletion-and-the-merits-drawbacks-of-ipv6-as-a-solution