5 ms·

At some point IPv4 address space will be all allocated. Its just that many people don't feel the pain yet nor have the foresight to do any preparation. I'm all

At some point IPv4 address space will be all allocated. Its just that many people don't feel the pain yet nor have the foresight to do any preparation. I'm all IPv6 and i got my first network segments that are IPv6 only. I got nothing to fear. And no NAT.

this_user 3y ago
Alarmists have been telling us for at least 15 years that the IPv4 space is about to be exhausted and how disastrous that will be. So far, nothing has happened.
- blueflow 3y ago
  Hetzner charges extra for IPv4 allocation.
  - nasmorn 3y ago
    Which is the opposite of a catastrophe. It is just a tiny inconvenience
    - blueflow 3y ago
      Yet. Lets talk again in 2034.
  - steeleduncan 3y ago
    As does AWS - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address-charge-public-ip-insights/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address...
- Latty 3y ago
  Because now most new users are shoved behind CGNAT where they can't accept inbound connections. The internet as consumers know it becoming only a tool to browse websites and not an actual internet connection that can do say, peer-to-peer gaming, sucks.
- nfeutry 3y ago
  The RIPE waiting list is at 400+ days. And getting bigger everyday.
- skrause 3y ago
  > So far, nothing has happened. Everything the "alarmists" told us has already happened. IPv4 address space has already run out which now means that you often have to pay an ever increasing fee to use a public IPv4 address, if you get one at all (more and more people are sitting behing a CG-NAT). Public IPv6 blocks are completely free.
- scbrg 3y ago
  You a climate change denier too, by any chance? The rhetoric is the same. Using the word "alarmist" to dismiss valid concerns, conveniently ignoring all the negative consequences that already have occurred and sprouting nonsense like "nothing has happened." What's happened is that everybody has been forced behind NAT, completely obliterating pretty much the whole point of Internet to begin with, and that addresses that could be essentially free are super expensive. But la la la nothing has happeeeeeeeened!
  - blueflow 3y ago
    You can overexaggerate a valid concern in an alarmistic manner. I'd argue the alarmistic, implausible reporting on climate change is the main cause of the scepticism.
    - jeffhuys 3y ago
      Being told 18 years ago in middle school that it’d be 50° outside 12 years ago has kept me skeptical during quite a few years. Overexaggerating only makes your point come across as weak, and in my case, made me think it was all bullshit for money. Just be honest.
      - wredcoll 3y ago
        So 18 years ago "they" said it would be 50 degrees ... 12 years ago? What? And exactly who do you think is profiting?
    - scbrg 3y ago
      Yes. I'm sure it's the occasional exaggerated reporting in tabloid media that is at fault. The billions of dollars that have been funneled into extremely focused lobbying campaigns spreading FUD and disinformation for 50 years have probably only had marginal effect.
      - blueflow 3y ago
        Guess why that didn't work, either! People are not that stupid.
- Hizonner 3y ago
  It's not that it will be disastrous. It's that it already is disastrous right now. The functionality of the Internet is severely degraded by NAT, and has been for all of those "at least 15 years". The network can't deliver its most basic function, which is to let any node talk to any other node at will. As a result, the designs of huge numbers of higher-layer protocols have been warped and complicated, and the whole thing has contributed to the whole maelstrom of extreme commercial centralization pressures, too. Everybody who wasn't willing to hard cut over to IPv6 should have been forced off of the Internet 20 years ago.
  - wyager 3y ago
    The problem is that there are way fewer than 4 billion people who actually have anything worth connecting to their node for. 99% of internet users are strictly consumers, and a protocol change won't do anything about that. For them, there's little difference.
    - themoonisachees 3y ago
      This is patently false. They don't host services, sure, but the current landscape has all but shaped application design into assuming at least one party will be behind a NAT, which heavily centralizes traffic because it becomes impossible to make truly decentralized apps. Take a small look at the TURN and STUN, things that would have no business existing if all nodes could have an address. There are very valid reasons to want to send traffic to a node so called "out of the blue", and suggesting otherwise suggests you have never looked deeper than HTTP.
    - blueflow 3y ago
      Video conferencing and online games. A pretty big market.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  ...and climate scientists have been ringing the alarm bell for more than 40 years and only now that it is kind of too late people timidly start to take them into account and do non significative changes in their life. And unless laws force them to, which will be hard to implement because individual countries do not want to hamper their own economic competitivity, the industries won't do anything more than the actual greenwashing. Chabges usually have to be implemented BEFORE the disasters happen. In a seismic zone, we should build earthquake resistant buildings now, not after the first major earthquake.
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > Alarmists have been telling us for at least 15 years that the IPv4 space is about to be exhausted and how disastrous that will be. So far, nothing has happened. Tell that to millions of people stuck behind CG-NAT. Tell that to ISPs trying to serve communities on shoe-string budgets: > I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house. > Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic. > We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices. * https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s-2022-and-still-no-IPv6/m-p/854673/highlight/true#M35732 https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
sambazi 3y ago
following geoff huston, v4 address pressure/usage is actually declining. reasons range from cdn prevalence to cgnat and v6 "islands" but the old internet seems to be chugging along
silverquiet 3y ago
I vaguely remember "celebrating" IPv6 day I believe in 2011 when the last block was assigned from IANA (? - I can never remember which authority does what other than ARIN). Obviously IPv4 addresses can be recycled and NAT and SNI have greatly increased the capacity of a single IP. My company "only" has a pair of /27 blocks which we used to use quite carefully, but now acknowledge will practically never be a limit for our uses.
SamuelAdams 3y ago
IPv4 ranges will always be available for sale. Businesses will only start to migrate when the cost of holding those allocations outweighs the balance on their books. The lack of adoption by major players (GitHub, twitch, IMDb, etc) is a financial one, not a technical one.
izacus 3y ago
Well, it doesn't help that IPv6 is a technological equivalent of a christmas tree bill. Besides the address space expansion, it shoves down our throat a bunch of fundamental changes that noone asked for (and are not supported at all in most SOHO and prosumer router equipment). This is why it's much more likely that you'll continue seeing things like CGNAT instead of IPv6 - the IPv6 standard is just an utter engineering failure no matter how you look at it.
- blueflow 3y ago
  NAT alone is definitely worse than IPv6.
  - izacus 3y ago
    [Citation needed] We've been using NAT and expanding it to decades which makes it an easy proof that it brings value. IPv6 is still barely adopted and barely available in two decades after having "ipv6 parties". What does that tell you about its value?
    - red_trumpet 3y ago
      40%-45% of Google users use IPv6[1]. I wouldn't call that "barely adopted". [1] https://www.google.com/intl/de/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/de/ipv6/statistics.html
      - sambazi 3y ago
        true, though i would guess that's mostly phones and it seems to be stagnating
        orangeboats 3y ago
        APNIC stats show that assigned IPv6 /32 prefixes are still growing YoY. Wouldn't call that stagnating. https://rex.apnic.net/statistics?allocationType=asn,ipv4,ipv6&from=1982-12-13&to=2024-04-15&interval=year&rir=apnic,afrinic,arin,lacnic,ripencc https://rex.apnic.net/statistics?allocationType=asn,ipv4,ipv...
rottc0dd 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IPv4_address_allocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IPv4_addr... I think it is to do with country wise allocation. I think India is seeing wide adaption of IPv6.
ghusto 3y ago
This go-to argument for why we must all start using IPv6 doesn't fly, at least for me. We ran out of IPv4 some time ago, and yet, here we still are.
- orangeboats 3y ago
  It depends on what you're doing. I am using IPv6 in my home network because I simply couldn't host anything on my CGNATed IPv4 connectivity. Working around this CGNAT either costed money and/or required people to install additional client on their machine to holepunch through the CGNAT, which wasn't ideal since all I wanted was to host a simple blog. Guess why people are being forced to move to CGNAT? Precisely because we have run out of addresses. The dismissal attitude of HN towards IPv6 ("we ran out of IPv4 and everything still works!") will always baffle me. Because things are _failing_ to work.
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > We ran out of IPv4 some time ago, and yet, here we still are. Yup. Spending money CG-NAT gear: > I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house. > Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic. > We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices. * https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s-2022-and-still-no-IPv6/m-p/854673/highlight/true#M35732 https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
pif 3y ago
> I'm all IPv6 and ... Good for you! I hope my thorough ignoring the issue will not hurt your feelings.
- orangeboats 3y ago
  It won't hurt the feelings of the IPv6 people, since IPv6 clients can connect to IPv4 services just fine through NAT64. But IPv4 people won't be able to connect to IPv6 services no matter how, so don't go surprised_pikachu.jpg whenever someone decides they don't want to pay for the IPv4 tax: https://www.bottlecaps.de/index/ https://www.bottlecaps.de/index/ https://loopsofzen.uk/ https://loopsofzen.uk/

this_user 3y ago

Alarmists have been telling us for at least 15 years that the IPv4 space is about to be exhausted and how disastrous that will be. So far, nothing has happened.

blueflow 3y ago
Hetzner charges extra for IPv4 allocation.
- nasmorn 3y ago
  Which is the opposite of a catastrophe. It is just a tiny inconvenience
  - blueflow 3y ago
    Yet. Lets talk again in 2034.
- steeleduncan 3y ago
  As does AWS - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address-charge-public-ip-insights/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address...
Latty 3y ago
Because now most new users are shoved behind CGNAT where they can't accept inbound connections. The internet as consumers know it becoming only a tool to browse websites and not an actual internet connection that can do say, peer-to-peer gaming, sucks.
nfeutry 3y ago
The RIPE waiting list is at 400+ days. And getting bigger everyday.
skrause 3y ago
> So far, nothing has happened. Everything the "alarmists" told us has already happened. IPv4 address space has already run out which now means that you often have to pay an ever increasing fee to use a public IPv4 address, if you get one at all (more and more people are sitting behing a CG-NAT). Public IPv6 blocks are completely free.
scbrg 3y ago
You a climate change denier too, by any chance? The rhetoric is the same. Using the word "alarmist" to dismiss valid concerns, conveniently ignoring all the negative consequences that already have occurred and sprouting nonsense like "nothing has happened." What's happened is that everybody has been forced behind NAT, completely obliterating pretty much the whole point of Internet to begin with, and that addresses that could be essentially free are super expensive. But la la la nothing has happeeeeeeeened!
- blueflow 3y ago
  You can overexaggerate a valid concern in an alarmistic manner. I'd argue the alarmistic, implausible reporting on climate change is the main cause of the scepticism.
  - jeffhuys 3y ago
    Being told 18 years ago in middle school that it’d be 50° outside 12 years ago has kept me skeptical during quite a few years. Overexaggerating only makes your point come across as weak, and in my case, made me think it was all bullshit for money. Just be honest.
    - wredcoll 3y ago
      So 18 years ago "they" said it would be 50 degrees ... 12 years ago? What? And exactly who do you think is profiting?
  - scbrg 3y ago
    Yes. I'm sure it's the occasional exaggerated reporting in tabloid media that is at fault. The billions of dollars that have been funneled into extremely focused lobbying campaigns spreading FUD and disinformation for 50 years have probably only had marginal effect.
    - blueflow 3y ago
      Guess why that didn't work, either! People are not that stupid.
Hizonner 3y ago
It's not that it will be disastrous. It's that it already is disastrous right now. The functionality of the Internet is severely degraded by NAT, and has been for all of those "at least 15 years". The network can't deliver its most basic function, which is to let any node talk to any other node at will. As a result, the designs of huge numbers of higher-layer protocols have been warped and complicated, and the whole thing has contributed to the whole maelstrom of extreme commercial centralization pressures, too. Everybody who wasn't willing to hard cut over to IPv6 should have been forced off of the Internet 20 years ago.
- wyager 3y ago
  The problem is that there are way fewer than 4 billion people who actually have anything worth connecting to their node for. 99% of internet users are strictly consumers, and a protocol change won't do anything about that. For them, there's little difference.
  - themoonisachees 3y ago
    This is patently false. They don't host services, sure, but the current landscape has all but shaped application design into assuming at least one party will be behind a NAT, which heavily centralizes traffic because it becomes impossible to make truly decentralized apps. Take a small look at the TURN and STUN, things that would have no business existing if all nodes could have an address. There are very valid reasons to want to send traffic to a node so called "out of the blue", and suggesting otherwise suggests you have never looked deeper than HTTP.
  - blueflow 3y ago
    Video conferencing and online games. A pretty big market.
prmoustache 3y ago
...and climate scientists have been ringing the alarm bell for more than 40 years and only now that it is kind of too late people timidly start to take them into account and do non significative changes in their life. And unless laws force them to, which will be hard to implement because individual countries do not want to hamper their own economic competitivity, the industries won't do anything more than the actual greenwashing. Chabges usually have to be implemented BEFORE the disasters happen. In a seismic zone, we should build earthquake resistant buildings now, not after the first major earthquake.
throw0101c 3y ago
> Alarmists have been telling us for at least 15 years that the IPv4 space is about to be exhausted and how disastrous that will be. So far, nothing has happened. Tell that to millions of people stuck behind CG-NAT. Tell that to ISPs trying to serve communities on shoe-string budgets: > I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house. > Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic. > We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices. * https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s-2022-and-still-no-IPv6/m-p/854673/highlight/true#M35732 https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.

sambazi 3y ago

following geoff huston, v4 address pressure/usage is actually declining. reasons range from cdn prevalence to cgnat and v6 "islands" but the old internet seems to be chugging along

silverquiet 3y ago

I vaguely remember "celebrating" IPv6 day I believe in 2011 when the last block was assigned from IANA (? - I can never remember which authority does what other than ARIN). Obviously IPv4 addresses can be recycled and NAT and SNI have greatly increased the capacity of a single IP. My company "only" has a pair of /27 blocks which we used to use quite carefully, but now acknowledge will practically never be a limit for our uses.

SamuelAdams 3y ago

IPv4 ranges will always be available for sale. Businesses will only start to migrate when the cost of holding those allocations outweighs the balance on their books. The lack of adoption by major players (GitHub, twitch, IMDb, etc) is a financial one, not a technical one.

izacus 3y ago

Well, it doesn't help that IPv6 is a technological equivalent of a christmas tree bill. Besides the address space expansion, it shoves down our throat a bunch of fundamental changes that noone asked for (and are not supported at all in most SOHO and prosumer router equipment). This is why it's much more likely that you'll continue seeing things like CGNAT instead of IPv6 - the IPv6 standard is just an utter engineering failure no matter how you look at it.

blueflow 3y ago
NAT alone is definitely worse than IPv6.
- izacus 3y ago
  [Citation needed] We've been using NAT and expanding it to decades which makes it an easy proof that it brings value. IPv6 is still barely adopted and barely available in two decades after having "ipv6 parties". What does that tell you about its value?
  - red_trumpet 3y ago
    40%-45% of Google users use IPv6[1]. I wouldn't call that "barely adopted". [1] https://www.google.com/intl/de/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/de/ipv6/statistics.html
    - sambazi 3y ago
      true, though i would guess that's mostly phones and it seems to be stagnating
      - orangeboats 3y ago
        APNIC stats show that assigned IPv6 /32 prefixes are still growing YoY. Wouldn't call that stagnating. https://rex.apnic.net/statistics?allocationType=asn,ipv4,ipv6&from=1982-12-13&to=2024-04-15&interval=year&rir=apnic,afrinic,arin,lacnic,ripencc https://rex.apnic.net/statistics?allocationType=asn,ipv4,ipv...

rottc0dd 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IPv4_address_allocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IPv4_addr... I think it is to do with country wise allocation. I think India is seeing wide adaption of IPv6.

ghusto 3y ago

This go-to argument for why we must all start using IPv6 doesn't fly, at least for me. We ran out of IPv4 some time ago, and yet, here we still are.

orangeboats 3y ago
It depends on what you're doing. I am using IPv6 in my home network because I simply couldn't host anything on my CGNATed IPv4 connectivity. Working around this CGNAT either costed money and/or required people to install additional client on their machine to holepunch through the CGNAT, which wasn't ideal since all I wanted was to host a simple blog. Guess why people are being forced to move to CGNAT? Precisely because we have run out of addresses. The dismissal attitude of HN towards IPv6 ("we ran out of IPv4 and everything still works!") will always baffle me. Because things are _failing_ to work.
throw0101c 3y ago
> We ran out of IPv4 some time ago, and yet, here we still are. Yup. Spending money CG-NAT gear: > I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house. > Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic. > We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices. * https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s-2022-and-still-no-IPv6/m-p/854673/highlight/true#M35732 https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s... * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.

pif 3y ago

> I'm all IPv6 and ... Good for you! I hope my thorough ignoring the issue will not hurt your feelings.

orangeboats 3y ago
It won't hurt the feelings of the IPv6 people, since IPv6 clients can connect to IPv4 services just fine through NAT64. But IPv4 people won't be able to connect to IPv6 services no matter how, so don't go surprised_pikachu.jpg whenever someone decides they don't want to pay for the IPv4 tax: https://www.bottlecaps.de/index/ https://www.bottlecaps.de/index/ https://loopsofzen.uk/ https://loopsofzen.uk/