12 ms·
Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out
- tyingq 7y agoI wonder if they will implement some kind of clawback for orgs that are sitting on large chunks of sparsely used blocks. Old tech companies and colleges come to mind. https://myip.ms/info/ip_ranges_blocks/Major_Biggest_IP_Address_Ranges_in_Internet.html https://myip.ms/info/ip_ranges_blocks/Major_Biggest_IP_Addre...
- icebraining 7y agoAs far as I understand from previous discussions, those blocks (1) can't be split among a bunch of providers, since it would bloat routing tables and (2) wouldn't extend the timeline very much, so it's not worthwhile engaging in that fight.
- tyingq 7y agoThere's apparently a wait list for /24's now. Desperation might inspire a new set of discussions. I believe BGP tables are close to crossing a threshold. (768k entries) that breaks a bunch of routers, so they need to address that anyway.
- kbirkeland 7y agoWe're already past 768k and are now around 800k[0]. [0] https://bgp.potaroo.net/as2.0/bgp-active.html https://bgp.potaroo.net/as2.0/bgp-active.html
- tyingq 7y agoThere's another problematic threshold at 1024k.
- dehrmann 7y agoWhen I was at Cisco, I'm pretty sure my desk phone had a public IP.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoIn what, 1998? They have been on RFC1918 for like 20 years. Source: Worked at Cisco.
- Bluecobra 7y agoI doubt that, but I think we're going to see more and more companies to sell off the unused blocks. Last year MIT sold off 1/2 of 18.0.0.0/8 to Amazon. It looks like the going rate per IP is between $20-$24 currently: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-salesw https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-salesw
- tyingq 7y agoThat's a good point...further scarcity will drive the prices to a point where selling is very attractive.
- jaimex2 7y agoipv4 is the new bitcoin?
- tyingq 7y agoDon't know how credible it is, but these folks were predicting the current ~$20 price goes to ~$50 over a year's time: Chart: https://www.retevia.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IPv4-Price-Predict-poly3-24.png https://www.retevia.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IPv4-Pric... Article: https://www.retevia.net/address-pricing-2019-and-beyond/ https://www.retevia.net/address-pricing-2019-and-beyond/
- jaimex2 7y agoYeah, I think there will be a small bubble as some try and buy all they can while we continue to transition to ipv6
- criddell 7y agoHas a date been set for when IPv4 will stop being routed?
- wmf 7y agoNo, because the Internet is a voluntary system.
- oarsinsync 7y agoWho is 'they', and under what authority? If you're thinking about RIPE or ARIN, legacy block allocations predate those organisations even existing. They have no rights over that space. At the same time, IANA has delegated 'future' (read: sometime in the past, but not until after those legacy allocations) responsibility to the RIRs (ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, AFRINIC). Finally, how do you determine whether or not space is used? Ping? BGP announcements to the Internet of the space? Neither of those concludes that the space isn't used, and RIR policies permit for registration of globally unique addresses without any obligation to announce to the Internet.
- tyingq 7y agoNot sure on who "they" is, to be honest. But if/when ipv4s become very difficult to obtain, lots of potential "theys" will likely emerge. Powerful companies and governments won't just shrug it off. Similar to eminent domain maybe.
- zamadatix 7y agoAt some point the cost of doing all of what you mention is more than the cost of NAT64/46 infrastructure to enable the problem to actually be fixed for more than a couple of years at a time.
- gorgoiler 7y agoWhen the options are: let them profit awkwardly from a windfall, claw it back against their will, or make their IPv4 assets obsolete, focusing on the latter seems most productive. The UK’s largest mobile provider now gives me an IPv6 only connection and I didn’t even notice.
- JimDabell 7y agoApple have made it a hard requirement for apps to operate correctly on IPv6-only connections for a few years now. If your app doesn't work unless it's on IPv4, Apple will reject it.
- tyingq 7y agoPretty sure that doesn't mean all distant API endpoints need ipv6 addresses. Just means no hardcoded ipv4 or incompatible API calls. So that ipv6 to ipv4 gateways work. So, the app is ready, but apple isn't dictating much about your backend.
- WorldMaker 7y agoApple's mandate happened because a couple US Telecoms asked them to. The US has plenty of cell towers that are IPv6-only, and at least a couple US carriers are now IPv6-only or IPv6-primarily, with more planning to switch. All the carriers have big NAT64 gateways of course to keep the internet from entirely breaking, but that's still an avoidable bottleneck from a backend perspective. Apple themselves may not be dictating what the backend is doing, but they are doing a lot of Happy Eyeballs [1] tests on your backend and IPv6 without NAT64 proxies in the way is likely the fastest experience for a lot of real mobile users today. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs
- bifrost 7y agoThat can't be totally true, Twitter doesn't work on v6.
- 7y ago
- AlpineG 7y agoHP have two contiguous class A 15 & 16 the latter was inherited when they took over DEC. That cant be justified.
- vectorEQ 7y agonice of them to admit last times it wasn't serious then ;D they been calling this out since advent of ipv6 >.> are they just trying to sell ipv6 or what? since a lot of companies move to cloud solutions i can imagine this being less of an issue and a lot of blocks to be returned to the pool?
- anderskaseorg 7y agoRIPE is one of five regional Internet registries that manage allocations for their respective regions, and all of them have announced the exhaustion of their pools of available address blocks of various sizes at various times over several years, as you would expect. Which of these announcements do you think weren’t serious?
- jcranmer 7y ago> all of them have announced the exhaustion of their pools of available address blocks of various sizes at various times over several years AFRINIC has not exhausted IPv4 yet, although they are coming close to the beginning of the end (when they're down to their last /11).
- Goz3rr 7y agoAnd cloud providers don't need IP addresses?
- moviuro 7y agoNot all of them: https://ipv6onlyhosting.com/en-us/cms/ipv6-shop/ https://ipv6onlyhosting.com/en-us/cms/ipv6-shop/
- oarsinsync 7y ago> a lot of blocks to be returned to the pool Nobody is returning addresses back to any pool. IPs are being allocated at a rate of over a million a month.
- pikzel 7y agoRIPE, there's this story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Would suggest reading it.
- pilif 7y agoYou have to be careful to distinguish what's going on here and who you are getting the IP addresses from. When RIPE is out, the only way to get more addresses is by buying or renting them from somebody else who has a commercial interest to sell or rent you IP addresses or to control what you are doing with them. With RIPE running out, there is no more way to get an IP address without asking a commercial third party for permission to be a part of the internet. This will lead to a further centralization of the internet as the owners of big blocks will make sure that their blocks get even bigger so they can ask for rent for what was previously available for (mostly) free. This isn't about saying that this is the end of the internet and the end of the ability for people to get on the internet, but it's definitely a huge change in landscape that we are going to feel as time goes on and we still refuse to go IPv6 Which makes sense considering that the exact same companies who would need to do something to get IPv6 going are also the same companies who have the most to gain from address scarcity.
- Dagger2 7y agoWhen did they cry wolf over this? They've made various announcements at each stage of running out, but this is the first time they've announced that they have more pending LIR applications than blocks to assign to them.
- mirimir 7y agoBut there are secondary markets for IPv4, no? https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=buy%20ipv4 https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=buy%20ipv4 Edit: And prices going up: https://www.retevia.net/address-pricing-2019-and-beyond/ https://www.retevia.net/address-pricing-2019-and-beyond/
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mikl 7y agoIt’ll be very intersting to see if this is enough to push ISPs to adopt IPv6 en masse, or they’ll keep dragging their feet and use nasty hacks like CG-NAT to avoid it.
- jarfil 7y agoThe more ISPs migrate to IPv6 and CG-NAT, the more free IPv4 addresses for everyone else. Wich means the migration will take a really long time. Also the only way to reach an IPv6 target from a IPv4 source is through a CG-NAT, so dual stack IPv6+CG-NAT deployments should be the norm for many years to come.
- mikl 7y ago> dual stack IPv6+CG-NAT deployments should be the norm for many years to come One can hope. I wouldn’t be too surprised if some ISPs try to deploy just CG-NAT and punt on IPv6 deployment as long as they can.
- tambre 7y agoSupporting IPv6 natively would be cheaper as they'd need to invest less in NAT capacity.
- pilif 7y agoThey will more than make up the difference by increasing the rent for the public IPv4 addresses they got when they were still available.
- icebraining 7y agoYeah, but it's not like offering IPv6 prevents those rents, so why waste that money on NAT capacity if they can pocket it instead?
- pilif 7y ago
- goatinaboat 7y agoThey were panicking about IPv4 running out 20 years ago, the amazing inventions of NAT and CIDR meant it never happened. I predict that we’ll be here in 20 years again.
- ehPReth 7y agoamazing?
- dasanman 7y agoNAT is annoying though
- PappaPatat 7y agoFor what real world reasons?
- throwaway2048 7y agoAh, the mythical "real world" where your concerns and requirements don't matter, and mine do.
- GoblinSlayer 7y agoVideo calls.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoNever had a problem doing video calls on ip/v4
- gerdesj 7y agoSIP and RTP are a pain. Long "fixed" but still a pain. ftp still refuses to die and is a pain in active mode. There are others. Only yesterday I had to wheel out Wireshark to prove to a telephony services provider that their bod had forgotten to update a PBX with its changed WAN address.
- 7y ago
- ThePhysicist 7y agoWe're still waiting for the processing of our application from beginning of September, I hope we can still get at least a /24 block. We mainly plan to use it to become independent of specific cloud / IT providers and control more of our infrastructure stack.
- alex_duf 7y agoI'm not sure in what business area you are, but aren't domain names usually enough to abstract resolution from location?
- zaarn 7y agoNot if you want to do things like E-Mail or provide stable IPs to customers. Also you'll get a more direct uplink and have more control over what traffic goes in or out (since you can blackhole traffic yourself).
- jl6 7y agoIPv6 worldwide adoption is at just under 30%: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html If the current growth rate continues, it looks like it will reach 100% by about 2035.
- big_chungus 7y agoI'd guess adoption will look less like an exponential or straight increasoming function and more like a sigmoid. As more people adopt, those left will be the increasingly resistant. Eventually, IPv4 re-sale markets will get pricey enough that bean-counters will insist.
- tialaramex 7y agoI doubt it on the bean counters, resale will trail off and stop being interesting. The IPv4 address space isn't big enough for the whole world, but it's easily big enough to indefinitely handle millions of holdouts left on legacy systems. Eventually they stop being enough traffic to make them uninteresting to the backbone, and the backbone becomes IPv6-only - but the v4 Internet still exists, in a sense, as a bunch of networks connected via IPv6 translation gateways. Perhaps for a century or more. Right now if you're a large organisation it makes sense to go IPv6 only internally and translate at your border. All your address headaches vanish immediately (remember trying to figure out how to cut up groups of systems so they'd fit in neat binary subnets in IPv4? Not a problem in IPv6, any conceivable number of machines will go in a one-size-fits-all IPv6 /64 Ethernet subnet) and you now have no future IT transition problems, because internally transition is finished. You own some translation gateways to connect your IPv6 clients to anything from the legacy IPv4 Internet and over time the traffic through those decreases so that cost will diminish. Whether the rest of the world takes 50 years or 15 to upgrade it's just a tweak to the budget for the translation gateways, everything else stays the same for you.
- paulsutter 7y agoWrong interpretation: the linked chart shows client-side adoption among Google users In practice today IPv6 is a kind of high functionality NAT for consumer devices. A more interesting statistic would be server-side adoption.
- privateSFacct 7y agoIsn’t this just for free ipv4? If you watch cloud providers ip spaces they are growing very impressively. When people say ipv4 has run out they should qualify this as free IPv4
- krallja 7y agoThis is for unallocated IPv4. ISPs and cloud providers will still rent you an address for as long as you have money in the bank.
- souterrain 7y agoThe opportunity to make money off an arbitrarily scarce resource is in my opinion a reason we haven’t seen more network operators pushing users towards IPv6.
- lifty 7y agoI'm curious if there are people here that have migrated their home network to IPv6 only, and if yes, what are the challenges encountered? I suspect the biggest problem is that there still are many websites that only have IPv4
- icebraining 7y agoIf you have a beefy router, you can install Tayga[1] to do the translation from 6-to-4 for all client devices. Then you can use Google's DNS server or run your own, to translate IPv4 addresses in the replies into IPv6 equivalents. [1] http://www.litech.org/tayga/ http://www.litech.org/tayga/
- gerdesj 7y agoIPv6 only is a bit daft as yet because you'll need a 6 to 4 gateway of some sort to see much of the web/internets. For starters, this: $ dig news.ycombinator.com AAAA ... fails I have been running dual stack at home for around five years now with only a couple of wobbles that I can point at my ISP losing their IPv6 and not noticing for a while.
- Dagger2 7y ago$ ip -4 addr show | grep eth0 # nothing $ dig news.ycombinator.com AAAA +short 64:ff9b::d1d8:e6f0 $ wget -6 https://news.ycombinator.com -O /dev/null Resolving news.ycombinator.com (news.ycombinator.com)... 64:ff9b::d1d8:e6f0 Connecting to news.ycombinator.com (news.ycombinator.com)|64:ff9b::d1d8:e6f0|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK [...] ‘/dev/null’ saved [34663] WFM!
- nathancahill 7y agoHow does this apply to email delivery? The biggest factor is having a "clean" IP address. Do these eventually become prohibitively expensive? Does email protocols switch to IPv6 and stop considering address reputation?
- icebraining 7y agoI think lots of these schemes use each /64 prefix as a single unit for reputation purposes.
- top256 7y agoWith email deliverability the key factor is now domain name reputation and less ip.
- megous 7y agoAnything changed recently? I got into quite some issues when migrating my mail server a few years ago to a new host, which led to the need to change the server's IP address.
- lucb1e 7y agoI never considered that it could be that way. That would be really nice: new domain, new reputation. Domains cost money, so that's good against spammers in general. And it's good for me, because my domains never sent any spam. But alas, no, that's not the state of things.
- miyuru 7y agoCurrently as only a handful of providers even support receiving IPv6 mail and due to spammers still using IPv4, we don't know yet. Usually /64 is considered for reputation in abuseipdb. Another fact is gmail which supports IPv6 requires a PTR pointing back to the domain the mail is sending.[1] Currently a lot of providers which gives IPv6 does not support adding PTR records for IPv6, because it is handled differently than IPv4. This has led to lot of people defaulting to IPv4 when sending mail.[2] [1] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 [2] https://google.com/search?q=ipv6+gmail+ptr https://google.com/search?q=ipv6+gmail+ptr
- aklemm 7y agoWhat's going on with IPv6 that is preventing it from alleviating the IPv4 scarcity?
- throw0101a 7y agoIMHO, corporate IT: "what's the business case for this?". It could be cheaper to buy IPv4 than have a company-wide (dual-stack?) IPv6 rollout: * http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190815_the_2019_ipv4_market_mid_year_report/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190815_the_2019_ipv4_market_...
- zamadatix 7y agoA million times this. A lot of "ivory tower" style conversation go on about "there would too many changes", "it has design flaws", "it should have been backwards interoperable from day 1" but at all of the companies I've been a network architect for the only thing that was ever actually a holdback on a v6 rollout has been the business asking why they would do it now when they'll still need v4 after and v4 works at the moment.
- positr0n 7y agoI always thought that basically the only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is the number of bytes in an address. Lately I've been learning a lot more about IPv6 and there are a TON of subtle differences in the protocols that matter if you're operating a large network. Random example I recently read about: the way link-local addresses are generated. [0] Not that this excuses inaction, but it does give me more empathy for orgs struggling with, or not doing, the transition to IPv6. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address [1]: Best doc I can find in 30 seconds that covers some of the differences: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/learn-about/ipv4-ipv6-differences.pdf https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/learn-about/ipv4...
- apple4ever 7y agoWhat happened is they changed a bunch of things about the protocol because they thought it would be a very forced adoption. Instead, it caused lagging adoption because of all the changes. If IPv6 was just IPv4 with extra addresses, the adoption rate would have been very quick.
- gorgoiler 7y agoIPv6 isn’t such a monster, I found, after biting the bullet seriously last year. There are still way too many IPv4 only sites though. As with anything IP related there’s a culture that’s just as important as the technical side. If your ISP gives you anything less than a /56 for your site (a VPS running multiple containers is a valid definition of site!) take your business elsewhere. There’s a lot of hyperbole about v6 address space, but even taking account of its sparseness, IP rationing really is for v4 only. For every /24 allocated to an LIR (NB 2 bits fewer than the subject of this RIPE bulletin) they can assign as many sites a /56 as there are current IPv4 addresses in total.
- tormeh 7y agoWhy would you do that? The promise of IPv6 to me is that all devices gets their own IP address, enabling us to move away from the server-client architecture of the internet. Allocating all IPv6 addresses to commercial server operators would require us to continue using NAT, so then we might as well continue using IPv4.
- gorgoiler 7y agoThere really is more than enough address space. The 24bit prefix for each Local Internet Registry means each assignment is its own internet of internets, with enough breathing room for multiple levels of hierarchical assignment, and still with 64bits leftover on the LANs for clients to randomly assign themselves scores of addresses without fear of collision.
- Tuna-Fish 7y agoThere is no address allocation scheme that would force you to use NAT on IPv6. A lot of people don't really understand exactly what moving from 32bit to 128-bit addresses means. Let's say that we waste 65535/65536, or about 99.9985% of IPv6 address space on pointless allocations, leaving only one /16 left. This still means there are 5 192 296 858 534 827 628 530 496 329 220 096 addresses left to allocate, or 5*10^30, or enough addresses that if we had to distribute them to a trillion people per planet living on a trillion planets, they'd still get 5 billion addresses per person.
- sneak 7y agosneak@nostromo-2:~$ host -t aaaa news.ycombinator.com news.ycombinator.com has no AAAA record sneak@nostromo-2:~$
- exabrial 7y agoIPv4 runout can be be pushed far into the future with DNS SRV records. This is a preventable emergency. Why it hasn't be included in HTTP/2|3 is mind boggling.
- zamadatix 7y agoHTTP/1.1 and forward includes name based virtual hosting (brought through TLS with the SNI field) and it's been extremely widely used. Seems mind boggling to suddenly want to change that for no additional gain.
- jakeogh 7y agoIPv4's inability to label all the things may be a feature. NAT's are like borders in some ways, and prevent fine grained censorship without larger consequences.
- realid 7y agoSo when will HN and ycombinator.com get IPv6?