IPv4 Unallocated Addresses Exhausted by 2010 419
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica is reporting on how the unallocated IPv4 address pool could run out as soon as 2010. The IPv4 Address Report gives details on just how fast the available pool of IPv4 addresses is diminishing. Will ISPs be moving towards IPv6 any time soon? Or will IPv4 exhaustion become the next Y2K?"
From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Interesting)
Is IPv6 so unappealing that they've gotta bribe people with pr0n to use it?
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Funny)
No, it was about Music Piracy! (Score:5, Interesting)
But if you talked to @Home's people as individuals rather than Corporate Employees, almost all of them would say "Well, Duh! Napster is the reason that people are *buying* broadband internet connections, of *course* we like it."
And, ok, the paranoia about servers on home cable modems was partly because their early trial equipment didn't work very well and they had no way to regulate individual upstream bandwidth usage, and PacBell's dishonest "Cable Modem Web Hog" ads made them really worried about perceptions of slow performance, but they were worried that somebody would run a pr0n webserver from home, become Cool Site of the Day because doing that on cable modem would be cool, and trash their neighborhood's network performance while causing a lot of publicity. And unfortunately most of the cable companies have not only not recovered from that attitude, they've been propagating it to the DSL providers, and they've been learning other cluelessly paranoid attitudes from the Australian ex-monopoly who thinks you should cap the total monthly download of their users (since that used to be expensive in Oz), and cap it to a ridiculously low level like 1GB/month, which is like 1.5 days of continuous 56kbps usage.
But when I had my corporate hat on, especially if I was talking to non-California customers, it was certainly much more proper to talk about the big internet usage being for music piracy than for pr0n
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:4, Insightful)
With one of the bigger 'features' of IPv6 being the possibility of assigning and tracking users individually with the huge number of addresses - I suspect it does not play into the current (sorta) anonymous surfing mindset folks have today. (Not that anyone is truly anonymous on the web) Once you have to slap down your address to access the content, I can see why people might not be interested.
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Interesting)
IPv6 doesn't force you to give up any privacy, and there's no 'user serialization' unless you buy into it voluntarily.
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:4, Insightful)
With v4, your router gets the address and then NATs it out to however-many devices you have. With v6, you'd get a block of addresses at the router, which it could then distribute via DHCP, or the machines could randomly assign themselves within. You're not losing anything there. Where you might gain something is in the ability to quickly switch IPs when traveling and connecting to an AP that's not yours (which is conceptually similar to performing a DHCP release-and-renew).
If you want plausible deniability, pretty much your only option is to leave your AP unsecured and hope that when the cops show up they buy it as a defense, or use some type of onion routing like Tor.
There seems to be a lot of fear and paranoia going around regarding IPv6, and I just don't get it. There's nothing you can do on IPv4 today that you can't do on IPv6, if you want to. Hell, if you're that attached to NAT, you can do it with IPv6 addresses just as readily -- it's just that it's stupid, because there's no longer any reason to since there's no address shortage, and there's really no privacy or security gained from it that you don't get by just rotating your IPv6 address.
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Insightful)
If one were to build a proper ipv6 router, they would need to (pony up the cash to) include a proper firewall, or educate the users. Good luck with either one.
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, I think this is a completely crappy way to run a network, and I think we just need to get rid of the idea of firewalls completely (at least as a generic cureall, I'm all for retaining them for specific applications); security needs to be at the client level, not at the network-gateway level; as more and more devices become mobile, they cannot and should not ever assume that their local network is secure.
But unfortunately, people have gotten so used to the idea of firewalls that they're attached to them, particularly because it allows for a certain amount of laziness (running old, crummy operating systems on Internet-enabled systems, not patching, etc.) while giving the perception of safety. So I suspect that all IPv6 implementations will mimic the brokenness of NAT, at least initially.
IPv6 can give out your hardware MAC address also (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IPv6 can give out your hardware MAC address als (Score:5, Informative)
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:4, Informative)
IPv6 doesn't force you to give up any privacy, and there's no 'user serialization' unless you buy into it voluntarily.
BUT: The whole
To illustrate my example, there's a IPv6 ISP in Germany that gives out even a
If we're not counting accountability, but just usage tracking on websites etc, easy: just don't treat every Ip address as unique (like in IPv4), but instead every
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you talking about? You have to "slap down" your address to receive content with IPv4, too - otherwise, how would a server know where to send its response? And if you're paranoid to the point that you want to break your Internet connection for the sake of not divulging internal IP addresses, then yes, you can masquerade behind a single IP address on IPv6 just as easily as you can on IPv4.
Or you could perform more complex 1:1 address masquerading, the likes of which aren't possible on consumer IPv4
truly anonymous on the web (Score:3, Insightful)
Hold on, someone is at my window, 'yes officer?' * click *
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Informative)
There are two issues:
- Switching protocols
- Getting IPv6 addresses
You can use the IPv4 subset of the IPv6 address space, and everyone can still talk to everyone while you convert. It's only the folks that have IPV6 addresses before the IPv4 users have migrated that become unreachable by anyone.So the online businesses are going to want to be the last ones to switch, so that their customers don't become unable to reach them.
But anyway, IPV6 gives you access to all the same content.
Re: From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, if IPv4 truly were a subspace of IPv6, then what sources address would an IPv4-only host be seeing when it receives such a packet from an IPv6-only host?
It is perfectly possible to use both an IPv4 and an IPv6 stack simultaneously, and there are some NAT-like technologies that run on a router to give IPv4 connectivity to IPv6-only hosts, but you'll still need an IPv4 stack somewhere on your network to access IPv4 content.
WRONG (Score:3, Informative)
The IPv4 addresses are a subset of the IPv6 space -- you can get to all of the IPv4 systems from an IPv6 network.
This is what IPv6 fanatics constantly FAIL TO UNDERSTAND. IPv4 addresses ARE NOT a subset of IPv6 addresses, because IPv4 and IPv6 are INCOMPATIBLE PROTOCOLS.
Let that sink in.
Just because there's some addresses within the IPv6 space that can map onto IPv4 addresses doesn't mean you've made the two protocols compatible.
I can't get to these embedded IPv4 addresses from my IPv4-only machin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is IPv6 so unappealing that they've gotta bribe people with pr0n to use it?
It's not unappealing, it's totally irrelevant to end-users. There's no market out there asking for IPv6 network access. ISPs and their upstream providers thus have no increase in revenue if they deploy IPv6, but that deployment will cost them real money -- v6 capable routers need much more storage and processing, for instance -- and so there's real financial incentive to avoid IPv6. Offering free pr0n might be a way to make the
Re:From TFA: free pr0n! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Routers that have been capable of supporting IPv4/IPv6 dual stack have been available for a long time now so unless you're a tiny ISP that has no budget for life-cycle upgrades it's very
Not so much actually (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It worked with IPv4.
Although I shudder to think back to the days of downloading pr0n on a 14.4k modem!
it's tghe next Y2k (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's tghe next Y2k (Score:5, Funny)
Re:it's tghe next Y2k (Score:5, Funny)
We've been in various stages of Imminent Death of the Net Predicted [catb.org] for at least 25 years. Y2K was merely the last version, and running out of IPv4 is merely the current version.
Just wait until we abandon CSS in order to ensure that an entire page can be rendered by through a single TCP/IPv6 connection. Domain names with vowels! HTML with serifed fonts! Imminent Death of Web 2.0 predicted!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Besides by the time they bother to implement it it will all fall apart with the year 2038 problem anyway.
Re:it's tghe next Y2k (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it would have run out a lot faster, had it not been for CIDR [wikipedia.org], which allowed addresses to be allocated more efficiently. However that -- like proposals to re-allocate unused space in some of the old corporate A-blocks -- slowed the bleeding but doesn't really do anything about the real problem.
Re:it's tghe next Y2k (Score:5, Insightful)
everything is going to be ok (Score:5, Funny)
Worse than Y2K (Score:4, Insightful)
It will be expensive to make a major shift to IPv6, which is why it's taking so long.
Until the complete exhaustion of all IPv4 addresses is an immanent threat the change will not happen, much like Y2K.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have an interesting concept of "easy"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, most recent network hardware are more or less ready to make the transition, and anyone running Windows 2000 Professional or later, MacOS X variants, and more recent Linux distributions could make the jump to IPv6 either natively or by installing a patch program.
Re:Worse than Y2K (Score:5, Informative)
My home network sits behind a Cisco 2621 running an IPv6 IOS image- and I have a
I even set up an IPSEC / GRE tunnel with a friend of mine along with mBGP (multiprotocol BGP). No problems. I set up route-maps and filters all without a problem. My friend and I were then able to get to each others Unix servers via ssh over IPv6 using hostnames that resolved via AAAA records.
I also run OSPFv3 internally- again without incident. Deploying IPv6 to my network took a grand total of an hour- and we're talking about BGP, OSPF, GRE IPSEC tunnels and so on.
In fact- the change was so easy I immediately began a project to upgrade my company to IPv6. So far it has been incredibly easily and completely transparent to everyone.
What's holding IPv6 back is two things: public perception that the change will be difficult (completely unfounded) and the unwillingness of anyone to just start deploying it. I have SpeakEasy for my home connection (business class SDSL with a
-sirket
Senior Network Engineer for a company you've definitely heard of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This would meet with more resistance, and would be harder to do, than just switching to IPv6.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding me? Are you actually saying that it would be more difficult for IANA to pull the class A's from organizations who have absolutely no use for it whatsoever, than it would be to upgrade every device connected to or part of the Internet infrastructure and configure it to communicate/route an almost entirely new protocol?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Interesting)
Class A blocks were one of the benefits of being a Internet pioneer. Why should they give them up?
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I've worked with ARIN to get/manage/return blocks of IPs for years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, apple was never an internet pioneer, they were very late in implementing the IP protocol, even microsoft beat them to it.
The people who handed out IP blocks cleanly did not expect the internet to be so popular (if they did they would have gone to ipv6 straight away).
They benefited froma mistake, now they should fxi the mistake.
If IP blocks are handed out as a reward for being an internet pioneer, how m
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:4, Insightful)
companies that totally don't need them would be companies like:
Ford
Boeing
GE
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Interesting)
Even as someone who doesn't think of Microsoft as an Internet pioneer, I'd rather MS owns this block than Halliburton.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple has under 20,000 employees. Boeing has over 150,000 employees.
Apple is a computer company, but just because Boeing isn't as trendy as Apple today doesn't mean they design airplanes with slide rules.
And they're not all about building commercial aircraft, either (that's actually less than half the company these days). Phantomworks isn't as well-known as Lockheed's Skunkworks, but they do their share of high-performance computi
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't complain about Apple. HP has all of 15.x.x.x and all of 16.x.x.x, because they purchased DEC who also had a class-A.
Interestingly, HP is the only company that effectively has a
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Informative)
Department of Defense Network Information Center 21.0.0.0 - 22.255.255.255
That's a...
Department of Defense Network Information Center 6.0.0.0 - 7.255.255.255
Department of Defense Network Information Center 11.0.0.0 - 11.255.255.255
Department of Defense Network Information Center 21.0.0.0 - 22.255.255.255
Department of Defense Network Information Center 26.0.0.0 - 26.255.255.255
Department of Defense Network Information Center 28.0.0.0 - 30.255.255.255
Department of Defense Network Information Center 33.0.0.0 - 33.255.255.255
Department of Defense Network Information Center 55.0.0.0 - 55.255.255.255
So that's... about 330 MILLION IP addresses for the US DoD alone? And people bitch about MIT hoarding!
In case they start embargoin' our IPs, see... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
True, but the OP did say "company." DoD isn't really playing in the same league as HP. (Despite HP's best efforts to go into the spying business.) Besides, DoD was responsible for DARPA, which was responsible for the early Internet, so I figure if one group deserves an absurd allocation, it is probably them.
Well, think abo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So that's... about 330 MILLION IP addresses for the US DoD alone? And people bitch about MIT hoarding!
Perhaps, but when contemplating prying them loose the phrase "you and what army?" may need literal consideration.
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reshuffle existing IPv4 space (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why MIT, Apple, DEC, IBM, and lots of other big companies were given Class A's. It wasn't just a "thanks for playing" reward, it was because the original design for the IP system required Class A blocks if you wanted to run big networks: if you had a big organization, you needed a Class A, in order to do multiple levels of subnetting.
When you look at the IP allocations and see GE or DEC's Class A blocks, it seems ridiculous. But you have to understand that when those allocations were made, what they were looking at was less the number of actual host IPs in the block (which is what we care about now) but the number of Class B and C subnet blocks that were inside. Put yourself in the shoes of someone at a big company like IBM or GE, with lots of regional offices. Each region/office needs to have a network, with its own subnets (for each department or whatever). That's how they were laying things out. "IBM" as an organization gets a Class A. Each regional office or some other division, Class B. Each network or further subdivision, Class C. Yeah, you end up with a lot of wasted capacity, but this whole scheme was designed back when a "host" was a PDP or VAX; there just weren't enough of them for it to seem like a major issue.
The problem people sometimes refer to when they talk about "the last time we were running out of IPs" (back in the early 90s) wasn't really a shortage of IPs at all (well, at least not immediately, although people were definitely realizing it was going to be a problem), it was a shortage of Class B and C subnet blocks. (Particularly Class B's, since that's what medium-size businesses and
So that's when CIDR was introduced, and it ended the whole 'Classed Network' concept (A, B, and C classes) and replaced it with the now-familiar bitwise/subnet-mask format. (E.g., IBM's Class A block is 9.0.0.0/8, Apple's is 17.0.0.0/8, etc.) This, along with prefix aggregation, allowed more efficient address allocation, and kept the routing tables from growing out of control. Now that you can subnet at the bit level, rather than at the Class level, those A Blocks seem huge. But keep in mind that before CIDR, each of those A Blocks was looked at, not as 16M hosts, but as 254 subnetworks.
It's only in retrospect, with the help of a bunch of new technologies, that the allocations made back in the Internet's early years look ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First off- no one in their right mind is going to give up their addresses.
Secondly- let's not keep IPv4 around any longer than it has to be. Please let it die already. Moving to IPv6 is just not that hard- including OSPFv3, mBGP, tunnels, filters and route-maps it took me an hour or so of actual configuration time to enable IPv6- for gods sake- let's just do it already.
Finally- breaking up
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This just goes to prove your ignorance. There were several times when routers were only _barely_ able to stay ahead of the table growth- and in many cases routers did have to be upgraded.
The routing table has been stable for a while and growth has been very small- mostly due to sensible allocation
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Go into any Apple store and fire up your Wifi, and you'll get a non-NATed 17.x.x.x address. There is a firewall, but other than that, its exactly what the internet is supposed to be.
Since Apple has very little of their infrastructure behind NAT, they have very few problems with things like NAT traversal, or buggy VoIP systems.
the AC
IPv6 (Score:2)
Are they going to fix [slashdot.org] IPv6 anytime soon?
I also love my quirks [slashdot.org].
Huh. The next time bamboo will flower. (Score:2)
Reallocate what is available (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of reminds me of a Grandpa Simpson (skewed to be somewhat on topic): "I didn't earn it, I don't need it, but if they miss one [octal] I'll raise hell."
VoIp Everything (Score:5, Insightful)
IPv4 addresses are going to be going away very quickly.
Re:VoIp Everything (Score:4, Funny)
Re:VoIp Everything (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
That's the same IP address I've got on my luggage!
Re:Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
Carbon Credits (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies may cut down unnecessary IP usage, or buy/rent addresses from other companies with plenty to spare.
This 'trade' could go on until such point it's either more costly to rent than move to IPv6, or when all available-and-necessary addresses have been fully utilized.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be an ass unless you've done your homework.
They will move when they have to (Score:5, Insightful)
ISPs won't care (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, it's already happening in other countries. In Chile for example (a reasonably high-tech country) VTR http://www.vtr.cl/ [www.vtr.cl], the only cable ISP, will give you ONLY RFC-1918 addresses, period.
The masses won't care. They only care about their basic apps, and ISPs will use that as leverage to control more services, especially all P2P and VoIP-related ones.
Link to RFC 1918 (Score:3, Informative)
If I'm reading it correctly your ISP treats you like you are part of their corporate intranet and then pipes your traffic out. I'd expect the ISP have a similar traffic footprint and pattern to a largeish college campus that doesn't assign every PC an outside IP.
Let's just NAT (Score:5, Funny)
Start preparing your resume... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully it *is* the new Y2K.
IPv6 is already here. Been here for awhile (Score:5, Interesting)
The advantage comes when you consider management. In order to have 20 SSH/FTP/etc accessible Internet servers, I'd either need 20 separate IPv4 addresses (getting a decent segment of a class C here is expensive), or I'd have to play fun games with ports. All our technicians have IPv6 on their laptops, and use tunnel brokers for access to the v6 network.
Most of our clients have IPv6 connectivity, though they don't notice it. When we put in a firewall, IPv6 comes default setup with tunnel brokers.
People keep asking, when's there gonna be v6 content? There is no v6 content (ok, their is full colour ascii starwars). Any content provider would be nuts to say "you have to have v6 to see our content" at this point (with the exception of mobile phones). IT Techs brought v4 to the public, we'll bring v6 to the public. Its technicians like myself who appreciate having an Internet accessible toaster (ok, so its not yet accessible) that have already started the ball rolling.
Before long you'll see hosting providers saying, you can have one web gateway shared v4 address and a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely, you should only need one port to communicate with your toaster. I'll even wager that you wont have 65535 devices in your house that you need to talk to. They only need one port. NAT it and be done.
The issue with this is that IP was designed so that each device has one IP address. When you visit google, you go to http://www.google.com/ [google.com], not http://www.google.com:81/ [google.com] (I tried to use :80 here, but slash removed it, so I'm using 81). So if I wanted my toaster and fridge to be accessible, to browser to their respective webpages, I'd have two choices; http://myhouse.example.com:81/ [example.com] http://myhouse.example.com:82/ [example.com] etc etc, or use a reverse proxy and use http://myhouse.example.com/toaster [example.com].
And how do you r
So in a back alley in the future (Score:4, Funny)
Easy way to speed IPv6 Adoption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy way to speed IPv6 Adoption (Score:4, Interesting)
I know you came up with this on your own, because great minds think alike. This was my suggestion a few years ago in some other IPv6 thread. It was a good idea then, and still a good idea now. Maybe, once
The whole of the OSTG would gain a lot of knowledge in migrating servers to dual stack, which would give the programmers very valuable skills they could exploit for a few years.
the AC
Yes, I've been on IPv6 natively since 2000, isn't it obvious?
Supply and demand (Score:3, Insightful)
And now to ensure this gets modded as Flamebait: there just aren't enough free-market thinkers on Slashdot.
"best efforts of organizations like ARIN" joke (Score:3, Insightful)
I've worked at Silicon Valley companies with multiple class B allocations that could have easily put them behind NAT gateways and firewalls. The University of California campuses have many class Bs and will tell you they "can't do NAT to the dormitories because it's too difficult to track". That's 65K address per class B and there are dozens of these, and several class As, that are just waiting to be reclaimed.
What these class A and B-owning organizations are doing is holding on to vacant land as long as they can, until it becomes valuable, at which point they hope to sell it at a big profit.
ARIN is doing the same thing by failing to reclaim these allocations. They're just waiting for demand to climb like California real-estate to begin cashing-in. This is exactly what Network Solutions/Verisign did with domain names when they had a government-protected monopoly. Have we forgotten so soon, one year domain registration was free (via SRI), and the mext year it was $100 per year per domain (via Verisign), despite actual costs of $7/year. This scenario should also be familiar to those who have had to change telephone area codes, sometimes more than once, until enough people complained (of course that was when the FCC was in Democratic hands. With Republicans the Telcos have once-again been cleaning up).
So believe the hype, but remember, if you fail to look a little deeper we will soon be paying the price, in increased ISP fees, for this wholly artificial IPv4 address shortage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ARIN, and the RIRs made one effort back in the 1997-2000 timeframe to reclaim many of the allocations that didn't seem to be in use (i.e. not announced on the internet). I can't find the summary of that, it should be somewhere on the Potaroo site linked in the OP. The results were something like 8
auction! (Score:5, Insightful)
This just in. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously it's all just FUD, There's an expiration date, but 2010? What happens when we make a few Class As into Class Bs? oh that's right, more time. I think the key is to figure out how to make the best "IPv6" and a way to make it so my old commodore 64 is willing to work with it (whether that be ISP level conversion or a inexpensive hub, note INEXPENSIVE)
Do I have a commodore 64? Not any more but the point remains there's literally a million devices out there only able to communicate with IPv4. There's actually a million people out there not willing to go through the hassle of going to IPv6 (and probably about that many who are unwilling to change) and if the way they are pushing to get people to switch with FUD like this, I'm guessing it's more than a couple million who don't want IPv6, so it's time to ask ourselves, how can we make IPv6 more attractive than staying with IPv4, and implement these ideas. IPv6 will likely overtake v4 one day, but come on, let's find a way to make people switch rather then just wait for it to happen.
THE correct answer (Score:3, Funny)
anything else?
Its not addresses but routes thats the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Going to IPv6 doesn't fix the fact that routers are running out of routes. This problem will get plenty of attention in about 2 months when the big Cisco routers start to dump routes because they are too big and adding IPv6 only makes the problem much worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Samba and Vista will lead the way (Score:3, Informative)
Vista will only contact Active Directory DC over IPv6, and although Samba3 works over IPv6, it won't work as a DC [Dan Shearer]
David Holder has a more detailed presentation of this at http://www.ipv6consultancy.com/ipv6blog/wp-content /uploads/2007/05/samba-and-vista-with-ipv6v2.pdf [ipv6consultancy.com]
but to oversimplify, MS tried to prevent Samba from being an
AD Domain Controller by making IPV6 a prerequisite, with
strictly limited and temporary success (;-))
--dave
Why not just not create multiple internets (Score:3, Interesting)
create multiple internets, one per country lets say. Everyone
gets to keep their existing internet address. Its just encapsulated
within a country network.
In order to get to country A address B.B.B.B you have to use
a route. Each ISP would have a special router address that would
send packets to that country accross a "dedidcated" connection. Your
computer would know that when DNS assigns a "zip" for a particular
connection, it locks the routing for those packets to go out via
the local ISP dedicated router address.
Your computer knows what router to use because it got the "zip code"
for that route when it did the DNS lookup.
Yes, I realize there would be problems. But perhaps less problems then
with IPv6 adoption?
This is moving to a hierarchial model. And the extra address space
comes from the routing tables.
Its just an idea. Please be kind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why IP6? fix an error (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not just fix the problem outright if you are going to do that?
uh, what? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to force all that change, then change to something that isn't a silly half-arsed hackjob.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NAT is a dreadful hack.
-b.