backtop


Print 25 comment(s) - last by roadhog1974.. on Aug 13 at 4:50 AM


  (Source: itp.net)

  (Source: iTech News)
Experts predict the world will run out within a year; 241 days and counting.

When the internet protocol  IPv4 was developed, mobile phones were not in heavy use and personal computers were not yet commonplace. Now computers, phones, automobiles and even appliances are connected to the web -- and the number of IP addresses that are readily available is dwindling fast.   

IP addresses are unique numbers assigned to all devices that connect to the internet.  The IPv4 provides for an estimated four billion IP addresses. 

There are currently less than five percent left -- about 230 million IP addresses -- and according to the
 Sydney Morning Herald, experts predict the world will run out within the year.   A video posted on the SMH site features Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist of the Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC) talking about the shrinking supply.  

A countdown depletion site has even been set up to track the fading number of IP addresses, but industry professionals indicate that a crisis can be averted with IPv6. 

"Over the years unless we embark on IPv6 then the internet will get slowly more and more strangled and applications will work in stranger ways," Huston said.

IPv6 would require an upgrade or reconfiguration to certain devices -- and some users might even have to buy new hardware.

Multiple customers may be forced to share IP addresses in the interim -- which may cause IP dependent applications like Gmail, Google Maps and iTunes to stop working.  Black market IP addresses may also begin popping up, Huston warns. 

Richard MacManus of
ReadWriteWeb indicates that an explosion of data that is about to take place on the Web -- and is expected to contribute to the rapidly depleting supply of IP addresses -- is due largely to sensor datasmart gridsRFID and other similarly related systems.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nothing to worry about
By roostitup on 7/30/2010 9:58:21 AM , Rating: 3
IPv6 is already implemented over the net and most new devices created within the last 5 years support it. This is nothing to worry about and it will not cause problems. DailyTech, stop with the scare tactics and pointless news articles.




RE: Nothing to worry about
By mcnabney on 7/30/2010 10:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I agree.

Verizon has already switched to IPv6 and I am sure the other carriers have done so as well or plan to very soon. I think the companies that depend on the devices to function seamlessly have long since made this a priority. All of those utility box / appliance makers couldn't really care less. They will 'eventually' be able to connect, so what is the problem?


RE: Nothing to worry about
By Lerianis on 7/30/2010 2:48:47 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, a lot of CONSUMER LEVEL devices still don't support IPv6. My router, which I just bought a year ago, doesn't.

Every single Linksys router I looked at doesn't do IPv6. So, it might not be as 'common' as you would like to believe it is.


RE: Nothing to worry about
By elFarto on 8/2/2010 10:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
My Linksys/Cisco WRT610N does IPv6, although it's limited to just 6to4, and doesn't have any configuration options.


RE: Nothing to worry about
By roadhog1974 on 8/3/2010 7:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
meh that's just a firmware update.


yeah yeah yeah....
By nvalhalla on 7/30/2010 8:36:16 AM , Rating: 5
They've been saying this for a decade at least. While we are long overdue for IPv6, we will just NAT/PAT out some more addresses and stretch v4 a while longer.




RE: yeah yeah yeah....
By amanojaku on 7/30/2010 8:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but it's cheaper to buy a public IP block and stick you on the Internet with a less-secure connection than it is to buy hundreds of NAT devices capable of supporting hundreds, if not thousands, of users. I've noticed that ISPs have switched from the NAT used 10 years ago (to keep you from running a server) to DHCP'd public addresses (also to keep you from running a server, hence dynamic DNS). It all comes down to money.


RE: yeah yeah yeah....
By Lerianis on 7/30/2010 2:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? Last time I looked, they don't really care whether you are running a server or not as long as you are staying under your bandwidth quota.


RE: yeah yeah yeah....
By Snow01 on 7/30/2010 8:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. But someone had to start reporting on it. It will be a non-issue though, as allowing addresses to run out will cost more than switching over. Bottom line.


IP6=Painful
By deltaend on 7/31/2010 10:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
IP6 will increase the complexity of setting up devices, running networks, and will be generally a pain in everyone’s backsides.

Example IP4 Address: 192.168.0.1
Example IP6 Address: 2001:db82:1234:af01:a00b:5aff:fe38:6f86

Additionally, converting to IP6 is way harder than most people think. Sure, devices such as routers can be purchased for home users, but enterprise applications that require IP4 to work properly will all need to be tampered with or updated or something else. Additionally, core elements of the internet such as backbone fiber relay, POP systems, and major telecoms will need massive overhauls to upgrade to IP6. In the end, this will be a massively expensive and ultimately unneeded overhaul. Just put all these smartphones behind a nice sized NAT.

The major issue is, remote wipes, remote updates, etc... might be broken by this type of setup, but so what? Put everyone behind a NAT and then figure out what it is going to take to make your application work correctly. Perhaps remote wipes could be handled by sending a crafted text message to a phone which would instruct it to not display the message, but if the included access key was correct, to connect to the internet and download an XML instruction set waiting for it.




RE: IP6=Painful
By fleabag on 8/2/2010 2:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well if it's within its own network (hence a NAT), each address will have a unique IP within that network, therefore doing "remote wipes" is a non issue. All a NAT technically does is create an intermediary between the world wide web and the devices themselves. Having a NAT makes far more sense than giving each of these useless devices their own unique IP address. I mean all the systems would do is contact that NAT, the NAT would have a list of devices on its network, you ask to speak to one of the devices on that network, and then you're patched over.


RE: IP6=Painful
By roadhog1974 on 8/3/2010 8:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
nat makes push from the internet very difficult.

security +
productivity -

unique ip address + corporate firewall is a better choice.


RE: IP6=Painful
By d3872 on 8/5/2010 2:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IP6 will increase the complexity of setting up devices, running networks, and will be generally a pain in everyone’s backsides.


I've set up IPv6 on a couple of different networks, and it's really pretty trivial. At the moment, the most annoying part is setting up a 6to4 gateway, and that's the part that goes away once ISPs start handing out IPv6 addresses. I just haven't found it very difficult.

It's also pretty easy programming-wise. I write network software for the financial industry for a living, and pretty much everything I write is IPv6 capable- even if it's not needed now, it's utterly trivial to throw it in and there's a good chance it will be needed within a couple of years (i.e. much like I was using four digit dates back in 1992, even though I only needed two digit dates). There may be some issues with legacy apps that are IPv4 only, but it's not that hard to segregate them off on their own little network.

As far as telecomm equipment goes, it's also pretty much a non-issue. I don't think there's going to be a need for "massive overhauls". Some of the older stuff (5+ years old) may have to process IPv6 in software instead of on an ASIC, but it can handle it. As far as old equipment goes, bear in mind that the depreciation schedule for telecomm equipment is three years, and if it's more than five years old there's a good chance it's either EOL or unsupported. Nobody in the telecomm business runs their core on outdated or unsupported equipment. No doubt there will be a significant cost in converting stuff at the very edge over to IPv6, but all of the core (and much of the edge) can already handle IPv6 (assuming it hasn't been converted to pure IPv6 already)


RE: IP6=Painful
By 2uantuM on 8/10/2010 10:08:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather deal with a long IPv6 address than not having an address at all.


Simple solution ...
By Proxes on 7/30/2010 10:40:15 AM , Rating: 5
I never understood why a mobile device like my phone needs a public IP address. Have all phones on a network behind a NAT device that hands out non routable IP addresses.

When my phone is on WiFi at home it has a non routable IP and works fine, so out in the wild it should work the same there too.




RE: Simple solution ...
By IsDanReally on 7/30/2010 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 3
This is exactly what Rogers does in Canada. 10.x.x.x has a lot IPs. It breaks VPN on iPhone for example, but if you care about that they will give you a public IP for $5 or $10. I could care less, and I think most people would feel the same way.

My phone has internet, and everything I want to do on it works fine.


LOL
By xler8r on 7/30/2010 8:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Why does this seem like the Y2K bug all over?




RE: LOL
By martinrichards23 on 7/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By martinrichards23 on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By martinrichards23 on 7/30/2010 9:06:02 AM , Rating: 1
oops.


RE: LOL
By MICHKEL on 7/31/2010 2:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
o I am very pleased with the thought and don’t feel like adding
anything in it. It a perfect answer.
<a href="http://www.volvovcarclubs.com" rel="dofollow">Volvo Car Club </a>


A lot of waste...
By zaxxon on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: A lot of waste...
By roadhog1974 on 8/13/2010 4:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
IPv6 is a HUGE scam by cisco et. al. to sell you new gear, nothing else! It's a kludge that introduces enough new problems that we should avoid it!


hmm cisco founded 1984, IPng(ipv6) adopted 1994, you could be
onto something there.

you could also be smoking crack.


241 days left?
By OUits on 7/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: 241 days left?
By plewis00 on 8/1/2010 3:50:55 PM , Rating: 4
It said 'within a year' not this or the year, so 241 days is still 'within a year'.


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

















botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki