Internet address system set for major upgrade [Web has officially run out of existing IP addresses]

news.com.au ^

[Sub-Driver]

Internet address system set for major upgrade

NewsCore June 04, 2012 8:45AM

Web has officially run out of existing IP addresses World to make the switch on to IPv6, Wednesday IPv6 system recognises 128-bit IP addresses There may be some "irritations" for users during transition

THE internet is set for a major upgrade in the coming week. But if all goes well, users won't even know it's happening.

The switch occurs Wednesday at 12:01am GMT (9.01am AEST), when the internet system shifts to a new standard that allows for trillions of "IP" numbers or addresses, up from the current four billion.

Known as the World IPv6 launch to those in the know, the move will see web operators and others switch permanently to the new system from the existing standard, IPv4. A test of the system was held last year.

The new standard was needed because the number of IP addresses under the old system has been exhausted.

The full transition will take several years, and old IPv4 devices and networks should continue to function as before.

"Most users shouldn't notice anything," according to Leo Vegoda, a "numbers resources" manager for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the internet address system. "If ordinary internet users need to know stuff, then the technology isn't right."

But Mr Vegoda said there may be some "irritations" for users as those using equipment on the old standard connect to computers and networks on the new standard.

[Izzy Dunne]

Good old Al Gore didn’t foresee the need for an Internet-connected toaster, so there’s only 32 bits of address space available.

[the_daug]

have to learn toredo?

[Airwinger]

Gee what fun to sub-net those addresses,, I HATE SUB-NETTING!

There, its official. I said it out loud!!!

[ßuddaßudd]

. ha ha

[ShadowAce]

[ShadowAce]

[mamelukesabre]

I thought this was already done 2-3 years ago.

[Born to Conserve]

I was talking to a guy who was at the meeting where they decided how many addresses the Internet would need. They listed every computer they though could possibly need to be addressed, and came up with about twenty computers.

So they put enough bits in the address for four billion computers.

[dayglored]

I see this has come around again. Geez.

1. Most computers on the Internet DO NOT NEED, and in fact SHOULD NOT HAVE, public IPv4 (or IPv6) addresses. They should be private. The only machines that require a public IP are servers and upper-tier routers. For example, my home residential DSL router has a DHCP-assigned public IP address on its outside port. Why? No one needs to hit that address from the Internet. I don't need a public address unless I'm running a publicly visible server.

2. I refuse to believe that there are more than 2^32 servers with a need for a public address, or that there will be that many any time soon (say, before the Unix epoch runs out in 2036).

3. There are already far more computers than 2^32 connected to the Internet. Most of the them are NAT'ed, and should be, and should remain so. NAT'ing, pain though it is at times, provides one of a number of perfectly workable solutions to the alleged IPv4 problem.

4. The marketplace will sort it out over time, given the opportunity. True public addresses are a valuable commodity, and will be bought and sold: bought by those who truly need them, and sold by those who have open addresses. There are still a huge number of open addresses; they're just sparsely distributed among the large original allocation blocks.

5. The problems people claim are due to the finite number of IPv4 addresses are, by and large, due more to misunderstanding of what they actually need. Given a reasonably free market in IP addresses, and some renumbering here and there, most of this can sort itself out just fine.

The last thing the Internet needs is IPv6 imposed on a system that is still working, and as far as I can see, will continue to work for a long time into the future.

IPv6 is a messy solution that requires a huge amount of replacement of existing gear. In the current national and world economies, who in their right mind is going to invest that kind of money, knowing it will never show a return?

Let me guess. Some big International Body will force everybody to conform. Oh, great. That'll end well.

[dayglored]

Oops, 2038 not 2036.

Something else runs out in 2036, but not 32-bit Unix time... :)

[Revolting cat!]

We should be more concerned about running out of SoSecurity numbers, zip codes, and NFL jersey numbers as teams keep retiring numbers of such accomplished players like, say, O.J.Simpson.

[P.O.E.]

Just add letters to the numeric set.

[GOPJ]

Thanks Shadow

[2111USMC]

Most users shouldn't notice anything," according to Leo Vegoda .... there may be some "irritations" for users as those using equipment on the old standard connect to computers and networks on the new standard.

Methinks Leo is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[antiRepublicrat]

Good old Al Gore didn’t foresee the need for an Internet-connected toaster, so there’s only 32 bits of address space available.

Actually, Vint Cerf did foresee the larger need for addresses. But they had to pick a number to move forward with the project and he thought it's just an experimental project, so 32-bits should be far more than enough. Computers of the time were also quite constrained, so 32-bits was a good tradeoff for performance. The 32-bits was supposed to be replaced with more bits for an eventual production version if the experiment succeeded, but in a quirky accident of history, the experiment became the production.

Cerf basically says that IPv6 is the production version. We've all been working on an experiment these past few decades.

[antiRepublicrat]

Most computers on the Internet DO NOT NEED, and in fact SHOULD NOT HAVE, public IPv4 (or IPv6) addresses.

Personally, I'm getting tired of having to use a dynamic DNS service to stream video from my home computer to my mobile devices.

I refuse to believe that there are more than 2^32 servers with a need for a public address

The available space is far less than 2^32. The military alone owns a huge chunk of that, and then there are unusable /8 blocks like 127 and 224. And then there's the inefficient initial allocation that has companies like Prudential having their own /8 block. I believe only a minority of /8 blocks are assigned to number registrars to make available to the public and those businesses that didn't get on the bandwagon early.

There are already far more computers than 2^32 connected to the Internet. Most of the them are NAT'ed

NAT is evil. IPv6 can do private networks too. Oh, and if you merge two of them it has a mechanism to avoid address collisions in the merged networks.

The marketplace will sort it out over time, given the opportunity. True public addresses are a valuable commodity,

I'm not a fan of markets created by artificial scarcity.

IPv6 is a messy solution that requires a huge amount of replacement of existing gear.

Actually, it's a very elegant solution that requires a huge amount of replacement of existing gear. However, once it's running, the maintenance and security of it will be far better than IPv4. Like I noted Vint Cerf said, IPv6 is the production version. It really is time to end the experiment after all these decades.

[Gideon7]

Many ISPs are already gradually converting home users to Carrier Grade 464 NAT (IPv4 -> IPv6 -> IPv4). See for example http://www.comcast6.net/

Basically the NAT is being pushed up from the home user’s settop box into the ISP’s gateway router.

It works like this: The user’s settop box accepts IPv4 from the user’s PC. The settop box wraps the IPv4 packet in an IPv6 packet and forwards it to the carrier router over the IPv6 link. The router unwraps the tunnel and forwards the packet out to the IPv4 Internet.

Most home users won’t see a difference, except perhaps those violating their AUPs by trying to run servers.

[Gideon7]

Comcast has announced that in addition each home account will get a static /64 subnet in the IPv6 address space.

That’s 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 unique IP addresses per home. Should be enough awhile :-).

[zeugma]

For example, my home residential DSL router has a DHCP-assigned public IP address on its outside port. Why? No one needs to hit that address from the Internet.

Maybe not you, but plenty of folks like being able to reach their home computer from the internet. I have tools at home on my primary workstation that it is useful to me to be able to access from anywhere via ssh. I would be really pissed if I couldn't get home.

The marketplace will sort it out over time, given the opportunity. True public addresses are a valuable commodity, and will be bought and sold: bought by those who truly need them, and sold by those who have open addresses. There are still a huge number of open addresses; they're just sparsely distributed among the large original allocation blocks.

That's absolutely true. Address space was divided up in a very inefficient manner, though this was largely because of the way the internet initially grew. If some of the Class A and Class B address space could be revisited, it would probably help the address space pressure, but really, there isn't enough address space in a practical sense for the future. IPv6 provides enough address space to last for a long time if any thought at all is put into allocation.

I forsee a day where IP addresses that spell things will be valuable.