5 ms·

IIRC the reason we can't use those is many IP stacks deployed today will refuse to even try using the addresses in 240/4. They were for a future version of IP,

IIRC the reason we can't use those is many IP stacks deployed today will refuse to even try using the addresses in 240/4. They were for a future version of IP, not for allocation later. As a hack, it's quite possible someone will try allocating these and ask everyone to patch their systems over the next half a year to a year as things get more critical and the RIRs begin to run out of /24s. (The RIRs all still have enough /24s to last us for months after the IANA pool gets exhausted.) We shall see. At the moment, there is no plans to use these. We could also arguably try to steal back the multicast ranges since it's so underused. :\

jacquesm 16y ago
Thanks for the explanation! I ogled the multicast ranges too but I figured that would be even harder than using a chunk that was previously not allocated at all. I think we'll be seeing a resurgence of NAT but for companies to relinquish their excessive blocks of routable IPS in return for a nice cash bonus from the new owners, a 'market for addreses' so to speak. We'll see if that is the way things will go, it would to me seem that that is a logical short term solution that does not require force.
- djcapelis 16y ago
  Right. For now everything is fine and will be for months and months. The RIRs will start getting more stingy, some amount of reclaiming will be made possible... but at some point market forces are going to start pushing things around and we will either end up on IPv6 or we will end up in a place where having real IP addresses will be a luxury. I am hoping for the option where the end to end principle is not murdered. We shall see. In any case, some of the software I'm developing as part of a research project will work even if the Internet becomes a NAT field. I hope we don't have to resort to that. As for the multicast block... I think some of them haven't been allocated, so if we're going to patch all the systems to make 240/4 usable, we might as well throw in some of the unallocated multicast space...
  - mgkimsal 16y ago
    I'm cynical enough to think we may not see widespread ipv6 (or any alternative to ipv4) for a long time. Why not? A) The entrenched power players "have theirs" B) It will cost a lot of money for the big players to upgrade. C) Instead of spending money, the big players can make money by charging for something that is a scarce resource. This will be looked at as pure 'market forces' by many and there will be no major push for a long time. It also requires a heck of a lot of coordination, or so it seems, between major players. Why do so few (none?) retail stores carry ipv6-capable routers? Maybe because so few ISPs support ipv6? Why don't the ISPs support it? Cause no consumers have the hardware for it? Extreme chicken and egg, and the only real downside for the next few years is some orgs are in control of resources that are becoming potentially more valuable by the day. What real incentive do they have to upgrade to ipv6 ASAP?
    - tbrownaw 16y ago
      > Why do so few (none?) retail stores carry ipv6-capable routers? Maybe because so few ISPs support ipv6? Why don't the ISPs support it? Cause no consumers have the hardware for it? I have a, um, Netgear WNR3500L, which is supposedly available at places like Office Depot and Walmart. It supports several kinds of IPv6, one of which is "6to4 tunnel" and which test-ipv6.com tells me works just fine on my Comcast connection. According to http://www.comcast6.net/ http://www.comcast6.net/ it looks like Comcast will be providing "real" IPv6 sometime this year.
      - wmf 16y ago
        Note that any "IPv6 ready" router you buy probably does not support DS-Lite or DNS64 and thus will probably stop working in 2012.
        jacquesm 16y ago
        Firmware upgrade?
        16y ago
geekinthecorner 16y ago
* As a hack, it's quite possible someone will try allocating these and ask everyone to patch their systems over the next half a year to a year as things get more critical and the RIRs begin to run out of /24s. (The RIRs all still have enough /24s to last us for months after the IANA pool gets exhausted.) * I'm afraid if this were feasible, we would have convinced everybody in the world to upgrade to ipv6 years ago.

jacquesm 16y ago

Thanks for the explanation! I ogled the multicast ranges too but I figured that would be even harder than using a chunk that was previously not allocated at all. I think we'll be seeing a resurgence of NAT but for companies to relinquish their excessive blocks of routable IPS in return for a nice cash bonus from the new owners, a 'market for addreses' so to speak. We'll see if that is the way things will go, it would to me seem that that is a logical short term solution that does not require force.

djcapelis 16y ago
Right. For now everything is fine and will be for months and months. The RIRs will start getting more stingy, some amount of reclaiming will be made possible... but at some point market forces are going to start pushing things around and we will either end up on IPv6 or we will end up in a place where having real IP addresses will be a luxury. I am hoping for the option where the end to end principle is not murdered. We shall see. In any case, some of the software I'm developing as part of a research project will work even if the Internet becomes a NAT field. I hope we don't have to resort to that. As for the multicast block... I think some of them haven't been allocated, so if we're going to patch all the systems to make 240/4 usable, we might as well throw in some of the unallocated multicast space...
- mgkimsal 16y ago
  I'm cynical enough to think we may not see widespread ipv6 (or any alternative to ipv4) for a long time. Why not? A) The entrenched power players "have theirs" B) It will cost a lot of money for the big players to upgrade. C) Instead of spending money, the big players can make money by charging for something that is a scarce resource. This will be looked at as pure 'market forces' by many and there will be no major push for a long time. It also requires a heck of a lot of coordination, or so it seems, between major players. Why do so few (none?) retail stores carry ipv6-capable routers? Maybe because so few ISPs support ipv6? Why don't the ISPs support it? Cause no consumers have the hardware for it? Extreme chicken and egg, and the only real downside for the next few years is some orgs are in control of resources that are becoming potentially more valuable by the day. What real incentive do they have to upgrade to ipv6 ASAP?
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    > Why do so few (none?) retail stores carry ipv6-capable routers? Maybe because so few ISPs support ipv6? Why don't the ISPs support it? Cause no consumers have the hardware for it? I have a, um, Netgear WNR3500L, which is supposedly available at places like Office Depot and Walmart. It supports several kinds of IPv6, one of which is "6to4 tunnel" and which test-ipv6.com tells me works just fine on my Comcast connection. According to http://www.comcast6.net/ http://www.comcast6.net/ it looks like Comcast will be providing "real" IPv6 sometime this year.
    - wmf 16y ago
      Note that any "IPv6 ready" router you buy probably does not support DS-Lite or DNS64 and thus will probably stop working in 2012.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Firmware upgrade?
        16y ago

geekinthecorner 16y ago

* As a hack, it's quite possible someone will try allocating these and ask everyone to patch their systems over the next half a year to a year as things get more critical and the RIRs begin to run out of /24s. (The RIRs all still have enough /24s to last us for months after the IANA pool gets exhausted.) * I'm afraid if this were feasible, we would have convinced everybody in the world to upgrade to ipv6 years ago.