[KyOSS Discuss] Suggested discussion topic: IPv4 address exhaustion and IPv6 adoption

John Hicks johnhicks at gulfbridge.net
Mon Sep 17 19:33:56 EDT 2012


Well, Barton, I knew it was an important topic, but your second post 
(below) convinces me that we really must be on top of it. If there is 
not a single guru among us who can enlighten us, then surely we can 
collectively work to get and stay on top of the subject and, where 
necessary,  to do what is needed to educate the public and lobby our 
ISPs for a rational policy that retains an open peer-to-peer network.
--John

On 09/17/2012 01:02 PM, Barton Chittenden wrote:
> I've been reading and thinking about it, and I think that the problem 
> is actually a little more pernicious. We all like to think about the 
> internet as a nice point to point network where everyone is connected 
> to everyone else. However, there are some significant interest groups 
> who would like the internet to be a broadcast network: A limited 
> number of content providers, and all the rest of the world as 
> consumers. If all of the world's end users are hidden behind some 
> ISP's NAT, that is much more what the world looks like... so you get 
> no movement at the national or even international level (because the 
> lobbyists for Time Warner, Disney, MPAA and all of the Telecoms are 
> fighting against it), and you get no movement at the ISP level, 
> because of the investments required.
>  
> On the up side, I believe that Comcast is using IPv6 on their network 
> infrastructure. They provide IPv4 addresses to the customer, but a lot 
> of the other stuff is IPv6 (I don't really know what the 'other stuff' 
> consists of -- set top boxes? edge routers?).
>
> What I can't figure out is why it isn't possible to have the IPv4 
> address space be a subnet of IPv6... mark off a [tiny] section of the 
> IPv6 address space and say 'Ok, the lower 32 bits of this address 
> space get sent off to the old internet'.
>
> Maybe that's the way it already works. I don't know.
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Alex Hagerman 
> <alex.hagerman at gmail.com <mailto:alex.hagerman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'm not sure on the first point, but at least on the second while
>     in a perfect world that sounds great, no ISP is going to let that
>     money grab get away with IPV6.
>
>     On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM, alan blount
>     <alan at zeroasterisk.com <mailto:alan at zeroasterisk.com>> wrote:
>
>         But it seems to me (non-networking guy that I am) that you can
>         have both and route either way, right?  
>
>         So providers assign a IPv6 to each of their customers, in
>         addition to the IPv4, and the world remains happy.
>
>
>
>         On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Jeff Squyres
>         <jeff at squyres.com <mailto:jeff at squyres.com>> wrote:
>
>             Note that it's a very different thing to say "there isn't
>             enough demand" vs. "we're not going to do it."
>
>             Barton is right in that it's a chicken-n-egg problem:
>             providers like IgLou won't spent the time/effort to go
>             IPv6 because not enough people (know that they) want it.
>              And not enough people want it because their providers are
>             not forcing them to it.  But if providers start forcing
>             people to IPv6 -- particularly if you're among the first
>             providers to do so -- you'll lose customers.
>
>             Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
>
>
>             On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Britt Dodd
>             <brittman914 at gmail.com <mailto:brittman914 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Someone needs to inform IgLou of this. They
>                 evidentially haven't read
>                 the news and don't believe its a problem. I guess they
>                 bought a huge
>                 block of IPv4 addresses back in the day....I had
>                 inquired about IPv6
>                 addresses and say said they haven't looked into IPv6
>                 because there
>                 wasn't enough demand for them.
>
>                 On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Alan Blount
>                 <zeroasterisk at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:zeroasterisk at gmail.com>> wrote:
>                 > Sounds like a very interesting topic. Alas I am not
>                 going to be helpful with
>                 > the answers to these questions, but I'll be very
>                 interested to hear them.
>                 >
>                 >
>                 >
>                 >
>                 > On Sep 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Barton Chittenden
>                 <bartonski at gmail.com <mailto:bartonski at gmail.com>> wrote:
>                 >
>                 > On September 14, RIPE NCC, the European regional
>                 internet registry, started
>                 > allocating IP addresses from its last /8 address
>                 block. This is the
>                 > beginning of the end of the allocation of the IPv4
>                 address space (i.e.
>                 > addresses of the form xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) as we know
>                 it. Allocation of IPv4
>                 > addresses in Europe is now strictly rationed.
>                 >
>                 > ARIN (American Registry of Internet Numbers) will be
>                 down to its last /8 by
>                 > this time next year.
>                 >
>                 > The long term solution to this problem is to start
>                 using IPv6 addresses,
>                 > which are essentially unlimited (The address space
>                 is so large that you
>                 > could assign about a thousand times the current
>                 internet address space to
>                 > each cell of every one of the 7 billion people on
>                 earth).
>                 >
>                 > The problem of switching to IPv6 is a
>                 chicken-and-egg problem: internet
>                 > users won't switch to IPv6 addresses because there
>                 are very few sites that
>                 > they can connect to which use IPv6, and no content
>                 providers use IPv6
>                 > addresses because no-one visits via IPv6. Most ISPs
>                 don't provide IPv6
>                 > addresses (or if they do, no-one realizes that they do).
>                 >
>                 > There are some short-term solutions, but they
>                 destroy the point-to-point
>                 > nature of the internet which can cause problems.
>                 >
>                 > I have a decent handle on what's happening and why,
>                 but I have zero
>                 > experience with setting up a network using IPv6...
>                 in many ways, it should
>                 > be transparent (as IPv4 is... you connect your
>                 computer to a router via cat5
>                 > cable or wireless, and you're connected). Obviously,
>                 it's not quite that
>                 > easy, if it was, we would all be using IPv6 and we
>                 wouldn't be worrying
>                 > about running out of address space.
>                 >
>                 > I was wondering if some of the local network gurus
>                 could give a talk about
>                 > this:
>                 >
>                 > A primer on IP addresses in general
>                 > What physical steps do I need to take to set up an
>                 IPv6 network? (e.g. a
>                 > LAN).
>                 > Are there any issues involved with running both IPv4
>                 and IPv6 on the same
>                 > network?
>                 > How do I connect to the internet via IPv6?
>                 > Will my ISP provide IPv6 addresses?
>                 > Are there security issues involved with using IPv6,
>                 and if so, how do I fix
>                 > these?
>                 > ...
>                 >
>                 > Any takers? I would be willing to do the
>                 presentation, but, as I said, I
>                 > have zero practical experience, and I think that the
>                 topic deserves more
>                 > than hand-waving.
>                 >
>                 > --Barton
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kyoss.org/pipermail/kyoss-discuss/attachments/20120917/4507477c/attachment.html>


More information about the KyOSS-Discuss mailing list