http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...b-experts.html
Printable View
That's been the plaintiff cry since the early 1990's.
IMO it won't happen soon. Companies are actually shedding IP addresses because of NAT.
In the 1980's I had two class C address blocks for my personal use.
Now I use a single IP assigned by my ISP and NAT.
One of my clients had a class B allocation. They now make do with three class C allocations and NAT.
The efficiency in allocation of IP addresses has improved dramatically over the years.
IMO the wolf criers are at it again.
Quoted for Truth...Quote:
Originally Posted by ua549
so is the number of un-used addresses going up, or is it going down?
I have a Windows Server 2008 book I am reading to prepare for the MCITP exam. Chapter 2 is all about IPv6 and why we need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ua549
NAT'ing is why we didnt run out of IP addresses in 2000, but that only bought us time rather than definitively solving the problem. Now, 9 years of explosive internet growth later, we will still run out unless we begin the transition to IPv6 very soon.
Maybe 2012 has nothing to do with the end of the world, but just the end of IPv4.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by LordZordec
I agree:DQuote:
Originally Posted by LordZordec
I'd be happy to move to IPv6, but my ISP doesn't support it.
Because my ISP doesn't assign dynamic IP addresses to anyone, I wonder how many static addresses my ISP will provide.
Having multiple public IP addresses greatly simplifies networked applications such as web and email serving.
It is much better than using local link addressing.
IPv6. I've wanted it since I heard about it in the mid-90's. The only country that doesn't care about it is the U.S., and that's because of the fact that we have 70% of the IPv4 space allocated to us. The rest of the world has to make do wtih the other 30%.
Can't imagine why we're dragging our heels.
Hardware and conversion costs are the biggest suspects.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Think of all the commodity routers and wireless gear used in homes and small businesses that must be replaced. Many low end nics will also need to be upgraded. I know that neither of my routers nor any of my wireless access points support IPv6 though all of my Intel nics do. I'm not sure of the IPv6 capabilities in wireless chips embedded in other equipment such as notebooks, handsets, pda's, iPods, iPhones, copiers, printers, ...
So, what we are saying is that because of complacency, short sightedness, and the usual American way of screwing things up, the world will run out of IPv4 addresses in the next few years, and the whole thing will be one tremendous CF.
Sounds about right.
Sounds a whole lot like Y2K all over again. We all know how overblown that was. :eek::p
America has plenty of IPv4 addresses, it's only the kids in the rest of the world that have to worry about it. And who cares about them? When was the last time you visited a non-US site? The BBC maybe? It's not exactly a pressing matter that we worry about the Internet problems of the rest of the world.
People worrying about IPv4 are roughly the same group who worry about peak oil, global warming, terrorists and the swine flu; that is, annoying hypochondriacs who need to find something better to do with their time.
The 32-bit IPv4 addressing scheme has over 4 billion available public addresses. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Only about 2 billion of them are on the Internet, if that. Which means you could give every single user a single public IP to NAT all day long and not run out for a long time.
But hey, no point using reason, we should just spend billions making sure all those poor people in other countries can give their toaster an IPv6 address.
And don't even get me started on how ridiculous the IPv6 scheme is. It's bad enough having to remember 12 numeric digits let alone trying to tell someone to ping some obnoxious 32 character hexadecimal IP.
"Oh, you can't connect to your router? Try pinging 192.168.1.1... oh wait, we're on IPv6 now, try pinging 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334."
Yeah, that's gonna end well.
I had a conversation with one local ISP I do business with.
They have no plans to migrate to IPv6 because of cost issues.
Just replacing customer premise equipment will cost them several million dollars.
(They own it and provide it free to their customers.)
Service disruption would be costly to them and for most of their customers.
Bottom line is that they will only migrate when forced to do so and if financing is available.
I have a feeling the switch to IPv6 will be like the switch to digital TV. The government is going to set a date in the future and then it will be up to everyone to get their **** updated or lose internet/network service.
can these two systems co-exist?
Yes, IPv6 supports 6to4 tunneling, allowing ipv6 traffic to travel over segments of the network otherwise only accessible via ipv4.
Hell many of the Linux distros, and a few other pieces of software now offer both ipv4, and ipv6 specific download sites, etc. IPv6 also has google's blessing, for their own internal ulterior motives.
Considering all OS's currently available (and sadly, I include XP in that), all PC's, and all core and edge routers support IPv6, the only cost issue is the damn cheapo routers many people are using in their home. Which hell, even about 10-20% of those (yay D-Link) support IPv6 as well.
Virtually all operating systems support IPv6. It's the networking CPE that will need replacing.
That said, I checked my print servers and cameras.
The Axis cameras may be able to get a new NIC for IPv6 but not the rest of the equipment.
I'm not sure how a dual stack architecture will work. Only high end routers currently offer it. I looked at a Linksys WRT610N, but the specs still say it is an N draft 2.0 version and nothing about dual stack compatibility for the router side. The manual does show how to set up DHCP for IPv6 on the private side. :D
I think it would be great to set up a private IPv6 and IPv4 network (dual stack) lab just to see how well it works.