6 ms·

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 2y ago
Hetzner charges extra for IPv4 allocation.
- nasmorn 2y ago
  Which is the opposite of a catastrophe. It is just a tiny inconvenience
  - blueflow 2y ago
    Yet. Lets talk again in 2034.
- steeleduncan 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
The RIPE waiting list is at 400+ days. And getting bigger everyday.
skrause 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
      Guess why that didn't work, either! People are not that stupid.
Hizonner 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
    Video conferencing and online games. A pretty big market.
prmoustache 2y 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 2y 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.

blueflow 2y ago

Hetzner charges extra for IPv4 allocation.

nasmorn 2y ago
Which is the opposite of a catastrophe. It is just a tiny inconvenience
- blueflow 2y ago
  Yet. Lets talk again in 2034.
steeleduncan 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago

The RIPE waiting list is at 400+ days. And getting bigger everyday.

skrause 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
    Guess why that didn't work, either! People are not that stupid.

Hizonner 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
  Video conferencing and online games. A pretty big market.

prmoustache 2y 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 2y 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.