8 ms·
No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean
- shmerl 12y agoIn US many ISPs are too lazy to move to IPv6.
- colanderman 12y agoWhich ISPs? Most of the large ones already support it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#United_States
- smutticus 12y agoMore and more networks are moving to IPv6. These are just a few case studies from different kinds of networks. http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/ipv6/case-studies/ http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/ipv6/case-studies/ The largest ISP in the USA, Comcast, has had IPv6 for a couple years now. Or T-Mobile, which recently deployed 464XLAT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl-hIyZSAmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl-hIyZSAmA
- shmerl 12y agoI hope that will speed up. In my area there are no landline ISPs with IPv6 support.
- jre 12y agogoogle cache : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
- Sharphunter 12y agowell, this is bad news
- IgorPartola 12y agoThis is great news. This means IPv6 there is that much closer to being a reality.
- rational-future 12y ago"the worse the better" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Chernyshevsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Chernyshevsky
- IgorPartola 12y agoSort of. IPv6 adoption is a matter of supply/demand economics. The supply of IPv4 is quickly approaching zero, while the demand is rising fast. At the same time the supply if IPv6 is effectively unlimited, but the demand is not there. At some point, the supply of IPv4 will go so low that its cost will suddenly jump. The cost of IPv6 deployment is still too high (mostly in human labor to set it up, and somewhat in equipment costs since some large legacy networks are not IPv6-ready). However, that jump in the IPv4 cost will price IPv6 deployment at a point much cheaper than alternatives (IPv4 large scale NAT or other workarounds). That's when we'll see a huge jump in IPv6 deployment. I think the next big step for ISP's is to provide IPv6-only native service to their clients, and add IPv6-to-IPv4 gateways to allow access to IPv4-only internet.
- zokier 12y ago> I think the next big step for ISP's is to provide IPv6-only native service to their clients, and add IPv6-to-IPv4 gateways to allow access to IPv4-only internet Isn't that pretty much how DS-lite works?
- IgorPartola 12y ago
- Globz 12y agoTime for IPv6 baby.
- rhoml 12y agoWe won't see IPV6 for the next 10 years or so.
- jodrellblank 12y agoI have an IPv6 enabled home internet connection, and can connect to IPv6 enabled websites with it, and there's no 6-to-4 conversion or having an OS level tunnel to Hurricane Electric.
- syncsynchalt 12y agoThe US is at 8% IPv6, I think that's enough of a base of early adopters that I could believe as soon as there was some actual pain involved with v4 we'd see some fast changeover. In other words, I believe the limiting factor on v6 adoption is no longer technical or interop, instead it's lack of problems with v4.
- bobwise 12y agoWhat are the practical consumer-level implications of this? My understanding is that every internet-enabled device needs a unique IP address. If there are no more unique addresses, can no more devices connect to the internet in this region?
- boobsbr 12y agoISPs could start putting users behind a giant NAT. One cable company used to do it in Brazil back in the 2000's
- LeoPanthera 12y agoMost cellular providers do this already.
- alex_duf 12y agoThat's bad practice and complexifies a lot the creation of peer-to-peer infrastructures.
- estebank 12y agoThat might be a feature in the media provider's eyes.
- darrelld 12y agoExcuse me if I'm being dense, but why does every internet enabled device need a unique IP? I thought the service providers had unique IPs and we just made our requests through them.
- LeoPanthera 12y agoYou don't need a unique IP, your ISP can use NAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT This is where many people can share one IP. But NAT has problems - you can make connections, but you can't accept connections from elsewhere. And it sometimes breaks particular applications. The only real solution is widespread IPv6 adoption, which seems depressingly unlikely right now.
- chrisBob 12y agoI don't have a good feel for the numbers involved here. Things like this always report: "We are out!... only 4,000,000 or so addressed remaining!" Four million sounds like a lot to me. Some number of the IP addresses that are counted as gone are also still unused. Can someone give me some idea of the situation with numbers that are easier to understand? Can we still limp through for a few years, or is this actually the crisis point?
- zokier 12y agoWell they give you another figure for scale: > Since it began operating in 2002, the organization has assigned more than 182 million IPv4 addresses throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. 182 million addresses in 12 years is roughly 15 million addresses per year, or 1.25 million addresses per month. At that rate 4 million addresses would last maybe 3 months.
- chrisBob 12y agoYes, but they could have issued 30m each to 5 different ISPs that are only half way through their allotment. If I want a fixed IP at my house or my school I don't get it from the internet address registry, I get it from Boston University or RCN.
- mindslight 12y agoIt does seem a bit anti-climactic. "We're out! We only have a /10 remaining, and we'll only be handing out /24 - /22 allocations!". Which does seem an awful lot like "flowing freely" (I'd be happy with just a personal /27 myself) until you put it in context with those early non-aggregable /24 allocations in 192/8 being generally viewed as a mistake for router memory, and the subsequent move to only give out portable allocations to larger service providers. IMHO all of the IPv4 exhaustion articles are basically scaremongering attempting drive adoption ahead of the real pressing need. Which isn't the worst goal, as it encourages people to become familiar (have YOU setup a tunnel from he.net, sixxs, or with 6to4/miredo and started playing around?). But I suspect we'll be hearing variations on the same "we're out! (but not really out)" story for the next 5 years at least. But besides a larger address space, v6 doesn't really give new features (besides plausible deniability of what constitutes a host address) and just adds to packet overhead. So the only compelling reason will be the ever growing number of endpoints that are v6 only, and behind NAT (from businesses who decide that providing v4 addresses to new customers by default is too expensive). Other businesses wanting to better serve/track those customers (avoiding NAT64 etc) will then finally have a real reason to treat IPv6 as a first class concern.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rhoml 12y agoThey need to know who is the real owner of each IP for tracing purposes.
- lloeki 12y ago> Most homes and even many businesses probably don't need a unique IP. The answer is then not IP but port scarcity. Depending on home activity, I have 100~400 sessions open on my router. This means as an ISP you can only have so much customers (10~50?) behind a single IP and assume reliable operation. With the growth in number of devices and online services, this is only bound to grow and is thus not a viable solution, even short term.
- colanderman 12y agoYes but those sessions can all share a single source port, assuming they are all to different destination IPs/ports. (TCP session identity is determined by both the source and destination ports and IPs.) IIRC most web browsers do not open more than 2-4 simultaneous connections to a given server. So an allocation of ports an order of magnitude larger than that should suffice for a typical home user. (Not that I'm advocating such crazy NATing!)
- Nimi 12y agoI wonder what will happen when the pool nears exhaustion globally, not just in Latin America and the Caribbean. A few scenarios come to mind, would love to hear more scenarios/insights: 1. The governments of the world push IPv6 legislation. Everyone invests the resources needed to migrate in a few years, overall everyone's pretty OK with this. 2. Carrier-grade NAT becomes much more widespread. People who need a public IP (mostly p2p users, I guess) pay more for that. Again, overall everyone's pretty happy. 3. Gradual, failover-friendly solutions are deployed. The network becomes fragmented, this plays out like IE6. After a few years, most of the people who matter get tired of this, pull support for IPv4.