IP Address Drought
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: IP Address Drought

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,499

    IP Address Drought

    O.K I know that they will introduce IP2 or whatever its called to give us more IP addresses but how will that affect the functionality of the internet etc.

    I mean 999.999.999.999 ip addresses won't last forever will they ?

  2. #2
    Master-Jedi-Pimps0r & Moderator thehorse13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Washington D.C. area
    Posts
    2,884
    IPV6 was being heavily pushed until NAT devices became widely used. Also, the introduction of CIDR (basically a super NAT scheme) has taken a great deal of heat off of the limited pool of public IP addresses.

    While the current IPV4 standard technically wont last forever, you wont see such a heavy emphasis on IPV6. As you know, NAT devices *greatly* reduced the demand for routable IP addresses.

    As for the future, many tech companies have IPV6 support in their stack implimentations already so the transition, when it does finally happen, wont be so bad.

    For more info:
    http://networking.earthweb.com/netsp...le.php/1402161

    Hope this helps.
    Our scars have the power to remind us that our past was real. -- Hannibal Lecter.
    Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful. -- John Wooden

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,207

    Re: IP Address Drought

    Originally posted here by mark_boyle2002
    O.K I know that they will introduce IP2 or whatever its called...


    It's called IPv6, we already use IPv4.

    to give us more IP addresses but how will that affect the functionality of the internet etc.
    I mean 999.999.999.999 ip addresses won't last forever will they ?
    Well, firstly, there are not 999.999.999.999 addresses, each byte only goes up to 255. Also many addresses are reserved and hence not available for general use.

    Just like thehorse says, NAT has reduced the demand for IPs. Institutions which currently use a class B network (approx. 64k addresses) may ultimately be asked to change to a smaller number of IPs (for instance, most of them can manage with a class C network, 254 addresses)

    One of the major problems is the way addresses were historically allocated in huge blocks.

    The authorities (RIPE, ARIN and APNIC) no longer allow allocation without a usage plan (50% within one year or something). They also potentially have the power to force people to return IP addresses they aren't using.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    382
    I'm still waiting, and I don't even trust that will come soon for the following reason:

    - NAT as previously said
    - IPSec, VPNs. With a single secured IP address you cover the whole range of private add of a company, excepted for DMZ.
    - And customer price. The IP header will increase from 20 bytes to 46 bytes. taht's make an overhead increase of more than 100%. It could buy a real rate slowdown especially to ppl with slow connection (16kb/s), like non DSL home puters.
    [shadow] SHARING KNOWLEDGE[/shadow]

  5. #5
    Senior Member tampabay420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    953
    this is true, networker brings up a good point... maybe we shouldn't be worrying about the scarcity of addresses, but rather the extra bandwidth this new protocol is going to take… What kind of strain will this new protocol put on our bandwidth?
    yeah, I\'m gonna need that by friday...

  6. #6
    I am wondering when IPV6 is widely used, there will be enough addresses to have all your major appliances and your dog's collar have an IP address. Is this true? If so, then why not go with the IPV6?

    Jack

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    385
    just a thought...whatever happened to IPv5?
    Preliminary operational tests were inconclusive (the dang thing blew up)

    \"Ask not what the kernel can do for you, ask what you can do for the kernel!\"

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    382
    tampabay420 /
    I made a quick calcul
    - common RTC modem 16000 bit/s connection: its a loss of 22% bandwitdh
    - DSL at 512 Kbyte/s: its a loss of 1%
    [shadow] SHARING KNOWLEDGE[/shadow]

  9. #9
    Senior Member tampabay420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    953
    ok, assuming you're right and it's from 20 bytes to 46 bytes...

    and a server usually handles lets say a million packets, thats 20million bytes (+ packet data), now the same networks, with the same bandwidth are now using 46million bytes(+ the same amount of packet data) ...

    i just think that might have some prblems associated with it?.
    yeah, I\'m gonna need that by friday...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    723
    Does implementing IPv6 at this time on my box provide any advantages? FreeBSD supports it , but i have always ixnayed it from the kernel. From some reading i did about a whiles back i got the impression it isn't used yet.?
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America\'s war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee
    -- true colors revealed, a brown shirt and jackboots

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •