4 ms·

What 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

by bobwise 12y ago

What 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 ago
ISPs could start putting users behind a giant NAT. One cable company used to do it in Brazil back in the 2000's
- LeoPanthera 12y ago
  Most cellular providers do this already.
- alex_duf 12y ago
  That's bad practice and complexifies a lot the creation of peer-to-peer infrastructures.
  - estebank 12y ago
    That might be a feature in the media provider's eyes.
darrelld 12y ago
Excuse 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 ago
  You 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.
  - zokier 12y ago
    > The only real solution is widespread IPv6 adoption, which seems depressingly unlikely right now Slow maybe, but unlikely? No, not really. IPv6 internet has grown fairly steadily (and afaik at a growing pace) since its inception and I don't see any reason why that trend would slow down or stop. There hasn't been any real opposition or alternatives for IPv6, mostly just indifference and ignorance. More and more new gear supporting IPv6 natively out of the box is being deployed on the field, reasons for not enabling it are dwindling. XP just got deprecated, most end-user stuff probably already supports IPv6. Old network engineers retire someday, and new generation is well aware of the issue at hand.

by bobwise 12y ago

boobsbr 12y ago

ISPs could start putting users behind a giant NAT. One cable company used to do it in Brazil back in the 2000's

LeoPanthera 12y ago
Most cellular providers do this already.
alex_duf 12y ago
That's bad practice and complexifies a lot the creation of peer-to-peer infrastructures.
- estebank 12y ago
  That might be a feature in the media provider's eyes.

darrelld 12y ago

Excuse 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 ago
You 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.
- zokier 12y ago
  > The only real solution is widespread IPv6 adoption, which seems depressingly unlikely right now Slow maybe, but unlikely? No, not really. IPv6 internet has grown fairly steadily (and afaik at a growing pace) since its inception and I don't see any reason why that trend would slow down or stop. There hasn't been any real opposition or alternatives for IPv6, mostly just indifference and ignorance. More and more new gear supporting IPv6 natively out of the box is being deployed on the field, reasons for not enabling it are dwindling. XP just got deprecated, most end-user stuff probably already supports IPv6. Old network engineers retire someday, and new generation is well aware of the issue at hand.