IPv4 address shortage reaching critical stage
Summary
The shortage of IPv4 addresses has reached a critical stage - less than 10 percent are still available - according to the registries that allocate internet numbers around the world.
Topics
The shortage of IPv4 addresses has reached a critical stage, according to the registries that allocate internet numbers around the world.
The Number Resource Organization (NRO), which represents the registries, said on Tuesday that less than 10 percent of all IPv4 addresses remain available, threatening the future network operations of all businesses and organizations unless ISPs and businesses step up their migration to IPv6.
"The limited IPv4 addresses will not allow us enough resources to achieve the ambitions we all hold for global internet access," NRO chairman Axel Pawlik said in a statement on Tuesday. "The deployment of IPv6 is a key infrastructure development that will enable the network to support the billions of people and devices that will connect in the coming years."
However, where previous estimates had IPv4 addresses running out in 2011, it now appears addresses are more likely to be depleted in 2012, Pawlik told ZDNet UK. "That is based on the current growth rate, but there might be big allocation requests coming up — you never know," he said.
For more on this story, read "IPv4 addresses: Less than 10 percent still available" on ZDNet UK.
Just In
Network address translation helped alleviate the
problem and set it back a few years. But we're
getting to the point where even NAT can't fix it.
problem and set it back a few years. But we're
getting to the point where even NAT can't fix it.
NAT boxes helped, but a lot of home users are now finding that their home routers dont have enough NAT memory space to cope with today's devices and the number of applications that now want to hold ports open for incoming packets. The worst place to see this is in business or bars that bought a cheap home WiFi hub which can't cope with half a dozen PCs running applications like IM, Skype, etc.
PCs already do IPv6 very nicely; I'm using it over a tunnel to my company every day. But few other devices have an IPv6 stack, which I think is very poor planning for any product that needs to last more than a couple of years.
If you are buying a long-life networked device, such as a new TV, you might want to check that it has IPv6 capability, or can have it added later.
PCs already do IPv6 very nicely; I'm using it over a tunnel to my company every day. But few other devices have an IPv6 stack, which I think is very poor planning for any product that needs to last more than a couple of years.
If you are buying a long-life networked device, such as a new TV, you might want to check that it has IPv6 capability, or can have it added later.
Mac OS X has supported IPv6 for some time now. Bring it on.
There's a whole lot more to this than Mac vs Windows or even LUNIX, UNIX or Solaris. Did you forget switches, routers, printers, WiFi AP's and everything else between your Mac and whatever it is you're "talking" to.
Your printer has a registered IP address? What is it? I have a few thousand lolcats that you should see...
Yes, there are network printers, especially in
businesses.
businesses.
... at the idea that that donc13's printer was on a network, but that it is a node on the public Internet.
LOL @ Network printers.
They do have IPs, internal ones. Most likely starting with 10.x.x.x or 192.x.x.x . Corporations dont take that many IPs.
They do have IPs, internal ones. Most likely starting with 10.x.x.x or 192.x.x.x . Corporations dont take that many IPs.
Old HP LaserJet 4+ with PostScript. All printing done through an IP on
the home network.
the home network.
I must get me one.
Apple is always at the foresk!n of technology.
Apple is always at the foresk!n of technology.
nt
What is the problem?
Every wifi router, every network printer, every network storage device should be onboard by now.
If not, publicly out them as manufacturers of substandard crap.
Every wifi router, every network printer, every network storage device should be onboard by now.
If not, publicly out them as manufacturers of substandard crap.
You have to manually installed the IPv6 stack, and then its not a complete implementation. Its missing some key features that are a present in the standard which the other OS's support. And last I heard, MS does not intend on making any changes to it.
I mean, It's in the TCP/IP preferences, you just
add the protocol to the list of protocols, it's a
fairly simple installation, and even if
Microsoft's solution still is deficient, it is
nothing that can't be resolved with a few patches.
add the protocol to the list of protocols, it's a
fairly simple installation, and even if
Microsoft's solution still is deficient, it is
nothing that can't be resolved with a few patches.
I think IPv6 was updated to the full spec in XP SP2, but I could be wrong. It isn't hard to enable, anyway. An ISP's config disk could do it easily.
In my enterprise organization, the network team
said the the way IPv6 works requires the whole
organization to switch at the exact same time;
thus it's nearly impossible. If there were a way
to convert one network node at at time, I'm sure
they would.
Has anybody else heard of this?
said the the way IPv6 works requires the whole
organization to switch at the exact same time;
thus it's nearly impossible. If there were a way
to convert one network node at at time, I'm sure
they would.
Has anybody else heard of this?
I have IPv6 enabled on all of our Windows Server 2008 servers, and on all of our Windows Vista/7 workstations. Everything still communicates fine with our older Windows Server 2003 servers, Windows XP workstations, and older network printers.
You don't have to switch the entire org at the
same time but you would have to be running both
protos (IP4 and 6) at the same time until the
migration was complete, which really complicates
matters quite a bit. It would be easier to just
switch everything at once within an enterprise but
that's almost one of those cross your fingers and
hope it works kind of thing while potentially
leaving your enterprise computer system unusable
until the bugs are fixed. This will be a difficult
migration for everyone; IT staff and users alike.
Another point is the shortage. I worked for an ISP
for over a year and they had A LOT of IP4
addresses being unused. These addresses are
already allocated to the ISP for future use but
for the higher up authorities it shows that those
IPs are already used. So, the figures aren't
necessarily accurate since so many allocated IP4
addresses are not in use while the powers that be
say we're nearly out.
same time but you would have to be running both
protos (IP4 and 6) at the same time until the
migration was complete, which really complicates
matters quite a bit. It would be easier to just
switch everything at once within an enterprise but
that's almost one of those cross your fingers and
hope it works kind of thing while potentially
leaving your enterprise computer system unusable
until the bugs are fixed. This will be a difficult
migration for everyone; IT staff and users alike.
Another point is the shortage. I worked for an ISP
for over a year and they had A LOT of IP4
addresses being unused. These addresses are
already allocated to the ISP for future use but
for the higher up authorities it shows that those
IPs are already used. So, the figures aren't
necessarily accurate since so many allocated IP4
addresses are not in use while the powers that be
say we're nearly out.
There are a bunch of migration methods to roll IPv6 gradually across a business. Wikipedia has some good description at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Transition_mechanisms.
The problem is that almost nothing that is affordable by home users
supports IPv6 in any capacity. The only exception that I am aware of to
this is the Apple Airport Extreme which supports both IPv6 natively
and supports IPv6 tunneling over IPv4 (but not tunneling with a
dynamic IPv4 address). Hopefully the situation has changed and I've
just not come across all these great affordable devices for your home
that support IPv6. I'm just not seeing them though so we need to
publicly out all manufacturers of putting out "substandard crap" that
doesn't support today's technologies. Most ISP's currently don't offer
native IPv6 services either. I've had IPv6 running in my house for over
two years now with connectivity to the Internet. Unfortunately to do
this I needed to use a Cisco 1841 router and tunneling to Hurricane
Electric. I've had native IPv6 running on our network at my job for
almost a year now as well and we're a service provider.
supports IPv6 in any capacity. The only exception that I am aware of to
this is the Apple Airport Extreme which supports both IPv6 natively
and supports IPv6 tunneling over IPv4 (but not tunneling with a
dynamic IPv4 address). Hopefully the situation has changed and I've
just not come across all these great affordable devices for your home
that support IPv6. I'm just not seeing them though so we need to
publicly out all manufacturers of putting out "substandard crap" that
doesn't support today's technologies. Most ISP's currently don't offer
native IPv6 services either. I've had IPv6 running in my house for over
two years now with connectivity to the Internet. Unfortunately to do
this I needed to use a Cisco 1841 router and tunneling to Hurricane
Electric. I've had native IPv6 running on our network at my job for
almost a year now as well and we're a service provider.
How do we know that the IP shortage won't contribute? There is likely to be something that needs that last IP that can't have it.
all ~4 billion of them will be available. Problem solved!
Wish I had thought of it.
All phones should be switched to IPV6. If cell's were
switched to IPV6 then there would be no problem with IPV4
address shortages. Because these days everyones phone has
an IP, and they are public IP's, not even private ones.
Cell companies could change their customers phones to
private IP's by putting all the phones through a set of
IP's on their network, or just give them IPV6 like I said
originally.
switched to IPV6 then there would be no problem with IPV4
address shortages. Because these days everyones phone has
an IP, and they are public IP's, not even private ones.
Cell companies could change their customers phones to
private IP's by putting all the phones through a set of
IP's on their network, or just give them IPV6 like I said
originally.
Howling pile of utter horse-sh1te... get the US govt to free up half its unused space.
I do not think all of my stuff is IPv6 ready. Better start upgrading that desktop from RHL8!
Why do Apple "fans" always have to be the "fastest gun in the west" - when you draw too quickly you end up shooting yourself in the foot! Windows and other OS's support IPv6 - this is not a unique capability to MAC OS X. This is ultimately a networking issue, not an OS issue - service providers, ISP's, etc... need to migrate their support for IPv6 so that this protocol is ubiquitous and supported globally. This involves a lot of testing/certification of core routers and switches and upgrading firmware (or replacing equipment), which is NOT an inexpensive undertaking.
Another method to address the shortage is to do a proper inventory of IPv4 addresses and recycle addresses that have been assigned/allocated and are no longer in use.
Internal network devices such as printers, workgroup servers, etc... are not really the problem - these devices can be NAT'd on the internal network - this shortage issue has more to do with the availability of public IP's.
Another method to address the shortage is to do a proper inventory of IPv4 addresses and recycle addresses that have been assigned/allocated and are no longer in use.
Internal network devices such as printers, workgroup servers, etc... are not really the problem - these devices can be NAT'd on the internal network - this shortage issue has more to do with the availability of public IP's.
Question from a non-techy - I've reserved our small business's .com name through Network Solutions but not yet gotten our web site up and running. Do we already have an IPv4 address (zero or little use) or just the .com name? Thanks!
Just the domain.
A domain name itself doesn't take up any IP addresses. However, the domain name will likely point to the IP address of a web server which is being used to host your web site. And, a single web server can potentially host multiple web sites, so there could be many domain names pointing to a single IP address.
Rick
Rick
Hype, fear, blah blah blah.
There are huge swaths of IPv4 addresses they randomly took off the table, there's plenty to go around still, and you have to factor what percentage of 'new devices' going on line will be behind NAT.
I think there's a different agenda behind v6 but I'll leave that outta here...
There are huge swaths of IPv4 addresses they randomly took off the table, there's plenty to go around still, and you have to factor what percentage of 'new devices' going on line will be behind NAT.
I think there's a different agenda behind v6 but I'll leave that outta here...
The trouble is that the unused pools of IPv4 are already mostly recycled; this process has been ongoing for years. There might still be some government blocks that could be released, but the idea that there are enough large free blocks out there to cope with growth at the current rate is rapidly becoming a myth.
It's like drilling for oil. Can we find enough new resource and _keep finding it_ as fast as we are using up the supply?
The answer is no. We are using up IP addresses much faster than we are freeing up unused blocks, and it's a finite resource.
It's like drilling for oil. Can we find enough new resource and _keep finding it_ as fast as we are using up the supply?
The answer is no. We are using up IP addresses much faster than we are freeing up unused blocks, and it's a finite resource.
Most systems are IPv6 ready. Some older items used in homes and small offices predate IPv6. But most gateways are ready for the change.
What is really lacking is a clear migration strategy. We have a chicken and egg situation.
Even though we're technically ready, we can't upgrade to IPv6 because everyone is still using IPv4. If I use IPv6, I can't reach a number of web sites because they exist only in IPv4 space.
ARIN, the registrar for North America, charges for a block of IPv4 and again for a block of IPv6. Therefore, anyone getting a web address needs to purchase 2 of them if they want to cover both IPv4 and IPv6. This discourages businesses from purchasing IPv6 addresses in addition to their IPv4 addresses and migrating ahead of the clients. Until the web sites are all IPv6 ready, the clients won't follow.
For IPv6 to move ahead, we need to make the migration easy to do. Just as we allocated 192.168.nnn.nnn, 172.16.nnn.nnn, and 10.nnn.nnn.nnn for local IPv4 addresses, we need to set aside a block of IPv6 addresses specifically to contain IPv4 addresses. We need to build routers and transparent proxies that will translate IPv4 packets to IPv6 packets on the outbound and back again on the inbound. This way, behind the firewalls, and behind the gateways, people can use IPv4, but the greater internet will use IPv6. Without a blocked-out section of IPv6 for IPv4, this last task is quite difficult to implement. It would require a 64GB cache memory inside every router just to hold the IPv4 to IPv6 translation table. That's not reasonable.
What is really lacking is a clear migration strategy. We have a chicken and egg situation.
Even though we're technically ready, we can't upgrade to IPv6 because everyone is still using IPv4. If I use IPv6, I can't reach a number of web sites because they exist only in IPv4 space.
ARIN, the registrar for North America, charges for a block of IPv4 and again for a block of IPv6. Therefore, anyone getting a web address needs to purchase 2 of them if they want to cover both IPv4 and IPv6. This discourages businesses from purchasing IPv6 addresses in addition to their IPv4 addresses and migrating ahead of the clients. Until the web sites are all IPv6 ready, the clients won't follow.
For IPv6 to move ahead, we need to make the migration easy to do. Just as we allocated 192.168.nnn.nnn, 172.16.nnn.nnn, and 10.nnn.nnn.nnn for local IPv4 addresses, we need to set aside a block of IPv6 addresses specifically to contain IPv4 addresses. We need to build routers and transparent proxies that will translate IPv4 packets to IPv6 packets on the outbound and back again on the inbound. This way, behind the firewalls, and behind the gateways, people can use IPv4, but the greater internet will use IPv6. Without a blocked-out section of IPv6 for IPv4, this last task is quite difficult to implement. It would require a 64GB cache memory inside every router just to hold the IPv4 to IPv6 translation table. That's not reasonable.
... as in the colossal cloud of switches, routers, gateways, etc. that sit between you and a target machine.
It's the gazillion anonymous black boxes sitting in racks in comms centers around the world that need to be upgraded to support IPv6. Some of these devices are relatively old and can't support IPv6 traffic. Others can be upgraded, but this has to be done in a well-managed, systematic manner.
There is no silver bullet here - a lot of work needs to be done on the core internet infrastructure as well as by each and every cable operator, telco, broadband, mobile and broadband operator to make sure that IPv6 is rolled out smoothly and quickly and that IPv4 gateways are introduced to isolate portions of the network that cannot be upgraded switftly.
It's the gazillion anonymous black boxes sitting in racks in comms centers around the world that need to be upgraded to support IPv6. Some of these devices are relatively old and can't support IPv6 traffic. Others can be upgraded, but this has to be done in a well-managed, systematic manner.
There is no silver bullet here - a lot of work needs to be done on the core internet infrastructure as well as by each and every cable operator, telco, broadband, mobile and broadband operator to make sure that IPv6 is rolled out smoothly and quickly and that IPv4 gateways are introduced to isolate portions of the network that cannot be upgraded switftly.
The main problem is getting allocations of IPv6. And I mean for both end users and web servers. How many WiFi hot spots have IPv6? How many web servers? How many mass market devices like cell phones and routers have it (at least their product lifetimes are 3 years or less, but still). There will be a crunch. I am a techie and played with it recently, but it is aggravatingly difficult to do it end-to-end. #1: Firewalls haven't a clue what to do with it. Not even Linux/UNIX people routinely run an IPv6 firewall table. NATting IPv6 is unheard of.
I wrote a lot on the issue a few years back on the support forum for a major hosting provider. I said "GIVE US AN ALLOCATION SO WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT IN TIME" -- but even those high tech rackspace type providers are not giving IPv6 allocations or assignments.
So IPv6 RUNS on your computer, but not on many routers, many major networks, and major connection types. Your DSL or cable modem, satellite or EVDO, WiFi or Fiber or video game box is not likely to support it. No kid down the street implements IPv6 to host his first person shooter matches, no schools have a budget for it, and ISPs are clueless. IT WILL BE A BIG MESS. Anyone here ever setup an AAAA record in DNS? Didn't think so. Anyone ever done it in DHCP except as a "site local" (deprecated as of 2004)? NOT. Ever seen the hoards of OLD documentation of 6Bone and ancient non-current IPv6 implementations? They don't even apply, and so any old book will discuss it wrongly. MESS!!!
I wrote a lot on the issue a few years back on the support forum for a major hosting provider. I said "GIVE US AN ALLOCATION SO WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT IN TIME" -- but even those high tech rackspace type providers are not giving IPv6 allocations or assignments.
So IPv6 RUNS on your computer, but not on many routers, many major networks, and major connection types. Your DSL or cable modem, satellite or EVDO, WiFi or Fiber or video game box is not likely to support it. No kid down the street implements IPv6 to host his first person shooter matches, no schools have a budget for it, and ISPs are clueless. IT WILL BE A BIG MESS. Anyone here ever setup an AAAA record in DNS? Didn't think so. Anyone ever done it in DHCP except as a "site local" (deprecated as of 2004)? NOT. Ever seen the hoards of OLD documentation of 6Bone and ancient non-current IPv6 implementations? They don't even apply, and so any old book will discuss it wrongly. MESS!!!
IPv4 + MAC Address = huge range, problem solved
IPv4 + MAC Address = huge range, problem solved
Doesn't work. You still need to change all the core routers, and you have even worse routing table problems than for IPv6.
Flat address spaces like MAC addresses only work on small networks. That why IP was invented.
Doesn't work. You still need to change all the core routers, and you have even worse routing table problems than for IPv6.
Flat address spaces like MAC addresses only work on small networks. That why IP was invented.
@ all the Apple OS fanbois
On a more serious and on topic note, going over will be like when MSFT brought out IE7. Remember all those websites that didn't display properly because they were non-standard sites? IPv4 to IPv6 will be like that, but instead of sites not showing up properly, the internet will basically die as a few big companies decide to switch everything to IPv6 and to hell with the rest of you.
i.e. It's not going to happen. =P
On a more serious and on topic note, going over will be like when MSFT brought out IE7. Remember all those websites that didn't display properly because they were non-standard sites? IPv4 to IPv6 will be like that, but instead of sites not showing up properly, the internet will basically die as a few big companies decide to switch everything to IPv6 and to hell with the rest of you.
i.e. It's not going to happen. =P
I don't get it?
Why not just require IPv6 on everything new in/on the cloud and have everything on the local side of the router use NAT. That way nothing changes for most users(IPv6 addresses are too long to remember)and the cloud can expand as needed.
Why not just require IPv6 on everything new in/on the cloud and have everything on the local side of the router use NAT. That way nothing changes for most users(IPv6 addresses are too long to remember)and the cloud can expand as needed.
Mostly because everybody would have to make the
change at the same time. Anybody making the
change to IPv6 on the public internet
automatically becomes disconnected from anybody
still on the IPv4 internet, and vice-versa.
While you might have some kind of temporary
translator service between sections of the
internet running IPv4 and IPv6, at some point
you have to force the issue and there will
always be stragglers, with 5% of the people
causing 95% of the headaches. Think of the
recent US transition to DTV. It took more than
a decade of planning for it to go off without a
hitch.
In making the change you will run into real-
world political boundaries. While political
boundaries don't exist in the internet, some
countries may say they just aren't ready to
force their citizens to make the change (after
all, this may require subsidizing people who
need new routers, as well as educating them).
Some countries such as Iran and China may use
IPv6 as an extra layer of censorship by not
allowing their citizens to make the change, and
then controlling all IPv6/IPv4 translators in
and out of the country (this could put a kink
into anonymous proxy services such as tor).
change at the same time. Anybody making the
change to IPv6 on the public internet
automatically becomes disconnected from anybody
still on the IPv4 internet, and vice-versa.
While you might have some kind of temporary
translator service between sections of the
internet running IPv4 and IPv6, at some point
you have to force the issue and there will
always be stragglers, with 5% of the people
causing 95% of the headaches. Think of the
recent US transition to DTV. It took more than
a decade of planning for it to go off without a
hitch.
In making the change you will run into real-
world political boundaries. While political
boundaries don't exist in the internet, some
countries may say they just aren't ready to
force their citizens to make the change (after
all, this may require subsidizing people who
need new routers, as well as educating them).
Some countries such as Iran and China may use
IPv6 as an extra layer of censorship by not
allowing their citizens to make the change, and
then controlling all IPv6/IPv4 translators in
and out of the country (this could put a kink
into anonymous proxy services such as tor).
In fact, countries like China are more likely to be forced to IPv6 sooner than the USA. Remember that the USA has the vast majority of IPv4 addresses. I don't know if it's still true, but at one point MIT had more address space than the whole of China.
The pressure for new addresses is thus greater in other parts of the world, especially in the developing world. Many of those countries have the possibility (and often also have enough forceful government control) to jump straight to IPv6.
I can well imagine a world where the US internet starts to fall behind the rest of the world, just as happened in the US cellphone market when the rest of the world adopted GSM. Less market pressure makes for less innovation and investment. It can take a long time to catch up again.
The pressure for new addresses is thus greater in other parts of the world, especially in the developing world. Many of those countries have the possibility (and often also have enough forceful government control) to jump straight to IPv6.
I can well imagine a world where the US internet starts to fall behind the rest of the world, just as happened in the US cellphone market when the rest of the world adopted GSM. Less market pressure makes for less innovation and investment. It can take a long time to catch up again.
just plain FUD...
They want to push their agenda of IPv6 which they have had since 1998.
It's simply not true.
What's real is that several big corporations have class A and class B (65,536) networks they don't want to surrender, while most ISP live with several class C (256) or 1000 CIDR based.
Since CIDR has been limited by the legacy systems, it has worked for B class but not for A class (which are still used for pan registers like ARIN and RIPE.
Just do the math:
4 blocks of 8-bits that means 32 bits, which translates to 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
Yes ma' 4 billion devices with individual IP.
That's 0.6 addresses per human being (considering a world population of 6,797,500,000 humans), or more or less one address per two people.
ZDNet, choose your interviews more wisely, not politically biased.
They want to push their agenda of IPv6 which they have had since 1998.
It's simply not true.
What's real is that several big corporations have class A and class B (65,536) networks they don't want to surrender, while most ISP live with several class C (256) or 1000 CIDR based.
Since CIDR has been limited by the legacy systems, it has worked for B class but not for A class (which are still used for pan registers like ARIN and RIPE.
Just do the math:
4 blocks of 8-bits that means 32 bits, which translates to 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
Yes ma' 4 billion devices with individual IP.
That's 0.6 addresses per human being (considering a world population of 6,797,500,000 humans), or more or less one address per two people.
ZDNet, choose your interviews more wisely, not politically biased.
Just do the math:
4 blocks of 8-bits that means 32 bits, which translates to 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
Yes ma' 4 billion devices with individual IP.
Very misleading. To get that sort of scale with those addresses means using flat addressing, which would mean every router in the world having a routing table with 4 billion rows in it. The world isn't so neatly arranged as that.
Yes there are still some blocks that can be freed up, and they should be, but that is still just a stopgap which we should use to plan a true migration to a new address plan.
4 blocks of 8-bits that means 32 bits, which translates to 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
Yes ma' 4 billion devices with individual IP.
Very misleading. To get that sort of scale with those addresses means using flat addressing, which would mean every router in the world having a routing table with 4 billion rows in it. The world isn't so neatly arranged as that.
Yes there are still some blocks that can be freed up, and they should be, but that is still just a stopgap which we should use to plan a true migration to a new address plan.
If you think 0.6 IP addresses per person seem a lot, consider the following:
In my workplace every employee (more or less) has at least one PC with an IP. Then we are getting IP phones. Then we have network equipment, printers, servers, CCTV cameras, physical access systems... Then every employee has a PC at home, so the home needs at least one network address.. ah, and then there are all those mobile phones that will neet IP addresses.
Not to talk about all devices at home. In my home alone, we use 5 PCs, 3 iPOD Touch, 3 Nintendo DS, one PS3, 2 networked TV decoders and one Popcorn Hour media player. Then there is the IP based web camera... And we are actually pretty normal around here.
So 0.6 IP addresses per person is actually far from enough.
Adding to that the fact that a lot of addresses are wasted due to partly used subnets and network management networks (one point to point network link needs 4 addresses - all managed network equipment have their own addresses)
I think we can agree that 0.6 addresses per person is not even close to what we will need in the future.
In my workplace every employee (more or less) has at least one PC with an IP. Then we are getting IP phones. Then we have network equipment, printers, servers, CCTV cameras, physical access systems... Then every employee has a PC at home, so the home needs at least one network address.. ah, and then there are all those mobile phones that will neet IP addresses.
Not to talk about all devices at home. In my home alone, we use 5 PCs, 3 iPOD Touch, 3 Nintendo DS, one PS3, 2 networked TV decoders and one Popcorn Hour media player. Then there is the IP based web camera... And we are actually pretty normal around here.
So 0.6 IP addresses per person is actually far from enough.
Adding to that the fact that a lot of addresses are wasted due to partly used subnets and network management networks (one point to point network link needs 4 addresses - all managed network equipment have their own addresses)
I think we can agree that 0.6 addresses per person is not even close to what we will need in the future.
In year 2000, it was already extremely difficult to apply
for a few hundred IP addresses even thought ISP was given
priority.
How can this problem dragged on for another 10 years ???
Is it a problem because of those who control the IPs want
to keep their authority and monopoly service ?
IP ver.6 is ready to use. Anyone who is not catch up with
the technology let them stay behind. Majority can not
continue to suffer because of minority users.
for a few hundred IP addresses even thought ISP was given
priority.
How can this problem dragged on for another 10 years ???
Is it a problem because of those who control the IPs want
to keep their authority and monopoly service ?
IP ver.6 is ready to use. Anyone who is not catch up with
the technology let them stay behind. Majority can not
continue to suffer because of minority users.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
