7 ms·

Infographic on IPv4 Addresses Running Out

15 points by papabearshoe 13y ago

jebus989 13y ago
Seems like the graphics guy has confused LAN and external IPs
- papabearshoe 13y ago
  Interesting point...maybe he or she was thinking of it from Dyn's perspective of remote access. Each of those devices probably connect to a hostname with their own IP (using port forwarding) or something. Good point though..the second half of the graphic is what I thought was interesting. The breakdown per region is pretty interesting. It's hard to imagine that years ago people they didn't expect this to happen.
  - AndrewDucker 13y ago
    They realised this was an issue in the 1980s, back when it wasn't even clear that the internet would spread into a general usage network (rather than military/academic). It took until 1995 to get agreement on what IPv6 would look like - but that's still 18 years ago. Plenty of time for a phased changeover :->
johnjac 13y ago
In my home I have: Nest, Sonus Playbar, Sonus Sub, 2 Wemo light switches, 2 Wemo outlets, 1 Wemo activity sensor, AppleTV, Ruku, ChromeCast, PS3, Apple Time Capsule, Apple airport, Work router for VPN, Work IP phone, Printer, Ooma home phone, 2 ipads, 1 kindle HD, and 2 iphones. I have 1 public IP address and everything works. We have an an IPv4 allocation problem, TONS of IPv4 space allocated to companies and not used. What we don't have is IPv4 usage problem, or the need for everything "on the internet" to be publicly addressable.
- xhrpost 13y ago
  I've seen the math done on the unused IPv4 space by some institutions. In the end, even if an organization gave up their entire /8, you get something like 1 to 2 months of extra time at best.
  - LaGrange 13y ago
    I’ve almost up voted you, but, actually: link?
    - xhrpost 13y ago
      I can't remember the exact article but if you look at this link, towards the end of the IANA pool, you can see they were burning through about two /8's per month: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml?=&skey=-2 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-addr...
      - johnjac 13y ago
        That is still allocations, not usage. If we had a public market for IPv4 addresses there would be incentive to use them like the limited resource they are.
        xhrpost 13y ago
        I wouldn't doubt it. I suppose it comes down more to personal opinions at some point, but I'd rather see an Internet of mass availability and resources. I can start a web service from my house because I can rent a VPS (including IP) for a few $'s per month.
  - arbitrage 13y ago
    Only one or two months, yes, because there's an allocation problem. Unless that's fixed (and it won't be), just giving back extra addresses will only result in them being squandered ... again.
- 13y ago
arbitrage 13y ago
I'm a bit taken aback the utter lack of preachiness in that infographic. It seems most infographics like to tell you what you must do, right now, what the hell are you waiting for, why aren't you taking action right now, etc. Quite refreshing that, no matter how simplified or slightly erroneous the data is, it's just kinda hanging out there. To summarize: we'll run out of IPv4 addresses, and they don't work interchangeably with IPv6. Oh well. I like it : )
mrt0mat0 13y ago
I know that the standard way to state ipv4 is 2^32, as it does in the infographic, but isn't that inaccurate? since the 255 is not used, as well as many other reserved IP addresses, shouldn't an infographic actually get the exact IP addresses available, and not the theoretical number that anyone with a calculator can figure out?
- dec0dedab0de 13y ago
  I get what you're saying, but just because they're reserved doesn't mean they're not IP addresses.
- pyvpx 13y ago
  .255 is just as valid a host address as .1 is, and being used is just that: used!
- ghshephard 13y ago
  10.0.0.255, 10.255.255.1, etc.. are valid ipv4 addresses. The only restriction in IPv4 is around not setting all of your host bits to 0 or 1. There are no restrictions regarding the number "255". If I have to quibble with infographics like these, is that they obscure the fact that IPv4 was able to have variable length subnet masks, I.E. You could have networks that were 24 bits in length (/24) or 27 bits in length (/27) - depending on your requirements. With IPv6 you don't have that freedom - every network is a /64, so, if you are only going to use two hosts on your network (for a network link) - you are still assigning 2^64 addresses to that link, of which you will only use 2, resulting in a "wasted" 2^64 - 2 hosts. It's odd the first time you do it, but eventually you just learn to live with the fact you have, for all practical purposes, unlimited address space in IPv6 - so wasting 2^32 times as many IP addresses than you had in ALL of IPv4 on just a single routed link turns out to be no big deal.
jpswade 13y ago
Marketing won't make IPv6 happen. It needs routers to have native IPv6 support.
- justincormack 13y ago
  My routers do, don't yours?
- Guvante 13y ago
  Most routers in homes have IPv6 support. The real problem is getting ISPs to provide IPv6 support.
AndrewDucker 13y ago
My favourite IPv4 infographic is this one: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
whage 13y ago
I'm pretty sure the 'universe' on the last slide should be 'galaxy'
tsaoutourpants 13y ago
The reason, IMO, that IPv6 has not taken off is that it is far too complex. As a networking professional, it seems like an absolute nightmare, even if all equipment properly supported the protocol. I still never understood why they couldn't just extend IPv4 by adding another octet, and then making all existing IPv4 addresses 0.{current_address}. This would give us about 1 trillion addresses and would make things dead simple.
- zrail 13y ago
  As a networking professional you should understand that 4 octets = 32 bits. Five octets would = 40 bits, which is a pretty weird thing to be shuffling around all the time. It would require the same kinds of changes to hardware that IPv6 requires, so why not not go all the way to 128 bit so we don't ever have to worry about it again.
  - wmf 13y ago
    Ethernet addresses are 48 bits which is funky but we managed to survive. But I agree that if you're going to fork the Internet you might as well fix as much as you can without running afoul of the second system effect.
- pyvpx 13y ago
  you can understand why "they" can't do that by doing a little reading on how those routers and switches you work with actually route IP packets.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  We've been using IPv6 for nine years now, and have about 17 million nodes. After you get over the hump of seeing fdc2:d343:216f:0001:0213:50ff:fe10:1234:5678 instead of 10.17.25.4, it really is more elegant in almost every way over IPv4. The only glitch that we ran into in the last nine years was a (self created) configuration error, where we statically added default gateways on hosts/servers that pointed to the router. Those Router IP addresses had been auto-generated VLAN MAC addresses, which where then concatenated with the IPv6 network /64. Unfortunately, the Cisco routers we were using, generated those EUI-64 addresses for the vlans based on the order they were created - and, after a power cycle, they were created in the order they appeared in the configuration - and all of a sudden our servers no longer had valid routes. Lesson learned - don't use static gateways on an IPv6 network, let your routers advertise themselves, and, if for some reason (possibly a bad one), you really, really want a static gateway , make sure you don't rely on the auto-EUI-64 generation ability of your router. Other than that - the protocol has been an easy drop-in replacement for IPv4. The "Why" of not just adding 0. to IPv4 - is that IPv6 does much more than just increase address length. First of all, it eliminates CIDR - which is the source of many network misconfigurations. All networks in IPv6 are /64s. Further to that, you get stateless address autoconfiguration - nodes can now determine their own address without having to rely on a stateful registry somewhere. Just concatenate the network+mac address (or random number for the privacy sensitive), and you have a routable IPv6 address. Broadcast is eliminated - and solicited nodes multicast is a very elegant replacement for services like neighbor discovery (rough equivalent of IPv4 ARP) I could go on - but, I don't know very many IPv6 network operators who dislike the protocol.

15 points by papabearshoe 13y ago

jebus989 13y ago

Seems like the graphics guy has confused LAN and external IPs

papabearshoe 13y ago
Interesting point...maybe he or she was thinking of it from Dyn's perspective of remote access. Each of those devices probably connect to a hostname with their own IP (using port forwarding) or something. Good point though..the second half of the graphic is what I thought was interesting. The breakdown per region is pretty interesting. It's hard to imagine that years ago people they didn't expect this to happen.
- AndrewDucker 13y ago
  They realised this was an issue in the 1980s, back when it wasn't even clear that the internet would spread into a general usage network (rather than military/academic). It took until 1995 to get agreement on what IPv6 would look like - but that's still 18 years ago. Plenty of time for a phased changeover :->

johnjac 13y ago

In my home I have: Nest, Sonus Playbar, Sonus Sub, 2 Wemo light switches, 2 Wemo outlets, 1 Wemo activity sensor, AppleTV, Ruku, ChromeCast, PS3, Apple Time Capsule, Apple airport, Work router for VPN, Work IP phone, Printer, Ooma home phone, 2 ipads, 1 kindle HD, and 2 iphones. I have 1 public IP address and everything works. We have an an IPv4 allocation problem, TONS of IPv4 space allocated to companies and not used. What we don't have is IPv4 usage problem, or the need for everything "on the internet" to be publicly addressable.

xhrpost 13y ago
I've seen the math done on the unused IPv4 space by some institutions. In the end, even if an organization gave up their entire /8, you get something like 1 to 2 months of extra time at best.
- LaGrange 13y ago
  I’ve almost up voted you, but, actually: link?
  - xhrpost 13y ago
    I can't remember the exact article but if you look at this link, towards the end of the IANA pool, you can see they were burning through about two /8's per month: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml?=&skey=-2 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-addr...
    - johnjac 13y ago
      That is still allocations, not usage. If we had a public market for IPv4 addresses there would be incentive to use them like the limited resource they are.
      - xhrpost 13y ago
        I wouldn't doubt it. I suppose it comes down more to personal opinions at some point, but I'd rather see an Internet of mass availability and resources. I can start a web service from my house because I can rent a VPS (including IP) for a few $'s per month.
- arbitrage 13y ago
  Only one or two months, yes, because there's an allocation problem. Unless that's fixed (and it won't be), just giving back extra addresses will only result in them being squandered ... again.
13y ago

arbitrage 13y ago

I'm a bit taken aback the utter lack of preachiness in that infographic. It seems most infographics like to tell you what you must do, right now, what the hell are you waiting for, why aren't you taking action right now, etc. Quite refreshing that, no matter how simplified or slightly erroneous the data is, it's just kinda hanging out there. To summarize: we'll run out of IPv4 addresses, and they don't work interchangeably with IPv6. Oh well. I like it : )

mrt0mat0 13y ago

I know that the standard way to state ipv4 is 2^32, as it does in the infographic, but isn't that inaccurate? since the 255 is not used, as well as many other reserved IP addresses, shouldn't an infographic actually get the exact IP addresses available, and not the theoretical number that anyone with a calculator can figure out?

dec0dedab0de 13y ago
I get what you're saying, but just because they're reserved doesn't mean they're not IP addresses.
pyvpx 13y ago
.255 is just as valid a host address as .1 is, and being used is just that: used!
ghshephard 13y ago
10.0.0.255, 10.255.255.1, etc.. are valid ipv4 addresses. The only restriction in IPv4 is around not setting all of your host bits to 0 or 1. There are no restrictions regarding the number "255". If I have to quibble with infographics like these, is that they obscure the fact that IPv4 was able to have variable length subnet masks, I.E. You could have networks that were 24 bits in length (/24) or 27 bits in length (/27) - depending on your requirements. With IPv6 you don't have that freedom - every network is a /64, so, if you are only going to use two hosts on your network (for a network link) - you are still assigning 2^64 addresses to that link, of which you will only use 2, resulting in a "wasted" 2^64 - 2 hosts. It's odd the first time you do it, but eventually you just learn to live with the fact you have, for all practical purposes, unlimited address space in IPv6 - so wasting 2^32 times as many IP addresses than you had in ALL of IPv4 on just a single routed link turns out to be no big deal.

jpswade 13y ago

Marketing won't make IPv6 happen. It needs routers to have native IPv6 support.

justincormack 13y ago
My routers do, don't yours?
Guvante 13y ago
Most routers in homes have IPv6 support. The real problem is getting ISPs to provide IPv6 support.

AndrewDucker 13y ago

My favourite IPv4 infographic is this one: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

whage 13y ago

I'm pretty sure the 'universe' on the last slide should be 'galaxy'

tsaoutourpants 13y ago

The reason, IMO, that IPv6 has not taken off is that it is far too complex. As a networking professional, it seems like an absolute nightmare, even if all equipment properly supported the protocol. I still never understood why they couldn't just extend IPv4 by adding another octet, and then making all existing IPv4 addresses 0.{current_address}. This would give us about 1 trillion addresses and would make things dead simple.

zrail 13y ago
As a networking professional you should understand that 4 octets = 32 bits. Five octets would = 40 bits, which is a pretty weird thing to be shuffling around all the time. It would require the same kinds of changes to hardware that IPv6 requires, so why not not go all the way to 128 bit so we don't ever have to worry about it again.
- wmf 13y ago
  Ethernet addresses are 48 bits which is funky but we managed to survive. But I agree that if you're going to fork the Internet you might as well fix as much as you can without running afoul of the second system effect.
pyvpx 13y ago
you can understand why "they" can't do that by doing a little reading on how those routers and switches you work with actually route IP packets.
ghshephard 13y ago
We've been using IPv6 for nine years now, and have about 17 million nodes. After you get over the hump of seeing fdc2:d343:216f:0001:0213:50ff:fe10:1234:5678 instead of 10.17.25.4, it really is more elegant in almost every way over IPv4. The only glitch that we ran into in the last nine years was a (self created) configuration error, where we statically added default gateways on hosts/servers that pointed to the router. Those Router IP addresses had been auto-generated VLAN MAC addresses, which where then concatenated with the IPv6 network /64. Unfortunately, the Cisco routers we were using, generated those EUI-64 addresses for the vlans based on the order they were created - and, after a power cycle, they were created in the order they appeared in the configuration - and all of a sudden our servers no longer had valid routes. Lesson learned - don't use static gateways on an IPv6 network, let your routers advertise themselves, and, if for some reason (possibly a bad one), you really, really want a static gateway , make sure you don't rely on the auto-EUI-64 generation ability of your router. Other than that - the protocol has been an easy drop-in replacement for IPv4. The "Why" of not just adding 0. to IPv4 - is that IPv6 does much more than just increase address length. First of all, it eliminates CIDR - which is the source of many network misconfigurations. All networks in IPv6 are /64s. Further to that, you get stateless address autoconfiguration - nodes can now determine their own address without having to rely on a stateful registry somewhere. Just concatenate the network+mac address (or random number for the privacy sensitive), and you have a routable IPv6 address. Broadcast is eliminated - and solicited nodes multicast is a very elegant replacement for services like neighbor discovery (rough equivalent of IPv4 ARP) I could go on - but, I don't know very many IPv6 network operators who dislike the protocol.