Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Runs Out of US Address Space For Azure, Taps Its Global IPv4 Stock

timothy posted about a month ago | from the one-on-every-desktop dept.

Microsoft 250

alphadogg (971356) writes "Microsoft has been forced to start using its global stock of IPv4 addresses to keep its Azure cloud service afloat in the U.S., highlighting the growing importance of making the shift to IP version 6. The newer version of the Internet Protocol adds an almost inexhaustible number of addresses thanks to a 128-bit long address field, compared to the 32 bits used by version 4. The IPv4 address space has been fully assigned in the U.S., meaning there are no additional addresses available, Microsoft said in a blog post earlier this week. This requires the company to use the IPv4 address space available to it globally for new services, it said."

cancel ×

250 comments

So after years of panic... (5, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a month ago | (#47237189)

So after years of panic, someone finally ran out of IPs. No, wait a minute... They still didn't.

Re:So after years of panic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237203)

I guess the news here is that people in the US need to now use inferior, international addresses?

Re:So after years of panic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237311)

Silly wabbit, the inferior barbarian lands are called the Overseas.

Re:So after years of panic... (4, Insightful)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | about a month ago | (#47237245)

"Years of procrastination" might be a better description than "years of panic". Putting off action is my favorite strategy too, but I've heard it doesn't work forever.

Re:So after years of panic... (4, Funny)

spectrokid (660550) | about a month ago | (#47237247)

but the routing tables once more become more complicated. Shit starts slowing down, there is more room for mistakes in BGP. With all the routers having to do more calculations a gazillion times a day, shit starts using more power. That is right: our refusal to move to IPV6 is increasing our emission of greenhouse gasses

Re:So after years of panic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237291)

Yes, having 2^128 addresses will make routing so much simpler.
(And yes, I will keep running double-NAT over ipv6, as I do now over ipv4)

Re:So after years of panic... (2)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47237333)

While one IP address is all a house needs when NAT is available... you're essentially creating a 56-bit IP+NAT address for each device in your house. The IP address indicating which wire in the city the connection goes to, and the NAT address indicating which machine on the house needs.

But datacenter customers want their service to have an IP address that's strictly theirs... and if every person has an apartment and a server somewhere, you see where this is going.

Re:So after years of panic... (3, Informative)

statemachine (840641) | about a month ago | (#47238005)

Yes, having 2^128 addresses will make routing so much simpler.

Indeed, it will. All IPv6 addresses are regional. There won't be any subnets split across continents.

Re:So after years of panic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238191)

Wow, you know so much! Take a look at IPv6 before you talk about efficiency. IPv4 had a rather large header of variable size. That's hella inefficient for routers who just want to receive and pass on a packet.

IPv6 instead has a much shorter header and a chain of extension headers. Most routers only need the first header (though the second may be needed in some cases). As another mentions, IPv6 addresses are very structured because there's so many of them, so most routers don't need to look at the entire address either. Actually, only the first 64 bits matter (the rest are network local).

Re:So after years of panic... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237981)

NIPCC: AGW is a myth

Re:So after years of panic... (0)

mysidia (191772) | about a month ago | (#47238021)

That is right: our refusal to move to IPV6 is increasing our emission of greenhouse gasses

Apparently you missed the memo about how IPv6 makes this even worse. You see everyone wants their business to be multihomed [ipspace.net] , AND every business wants PI address space, so they don't have to change their IP addresses if they switch ISPs.

And thanks to new RIR policies that apply to IPv6, everyone can get their own PI allocation, if they just need to deploy 200 hosts, they will be able to get their Provider Independent allocation at low cost and further pollute the global routing table.

So there will likely be more IPv6 routes than IPv4 routes, and each one costs 4 times as much.

Re:So after years of panic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238301)

Maybe our refusal to move to IPv6 has something to do with it being insanely complicated, rife with seemingly deliberate privacy flaws, and is incredibly annoying to implement? Back when we had time, nobody seemed to ask the hard question: is this convoluted mess really what we want to end up with?

Consider this: if we were not running out of address spaces, would we seriously be considering adopting this abomination? Recent history suggests that most people vote a rather large "NO" to that question. So now we're going to be stuck with a barely workable standard that almost nobody except academic purists and government spies actually want, all because no viable alternative was developed when there was actually time to do so.

Re:So after years of panic... (1)

letherial (1302031) | about a month ago | (#47237369)

There are still plenty of IP, but so many companys just buy them up and sit on them like they are a old childrens toys that need to be preserved in a box to keep value.

Lets face it, these company's are hoping to make money on them when the demand is high, its just a typical move in a oligarchy

Re:So after years of panic... (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a month ago | (#47237421)

Yes, NA is out because large multinational corporations have been hoarding them for years.

Re:So after years of panic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238123)

Stephen Fry tells me they keep generating IPs infinitum. Just buy a domain name, sponsor an IP address' birth!

Re:So after years of panic... (5, Funny)

tehlinux (896034) | about a month ago | (#47237715)

I think the headline was meant to point out that people are actually using azure...

Not sure what they mean... (0)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about a month ago | (#47237215)

I am not sure what this "globally assigned" means, but I imagine it means that they had a pile of IP addresses allocated to them decades ago and that they weren't using, and now they started using them. Doesn't sound like a bad thing if it is so...

Re:Not sure what they mean... (5, Interesting)

Enry (630) | about a month ago | (#47237289)

It means that when I deployed a new virtual desktop in Azure and specified "East US" as the data center location, services that looked at the IP address thought I was in Brazil or Germany. Which played hell with Google when I started Chrome because it customized the language for the area it thought I was in. That explains a lot.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month ago | (#47237347)

If you called MS support you would have learned that you should have used Internet Explorer, not Chrome!

Re:Not sure what they mean... (1)

Enry (630) | about a month ago | (#47237409)

If I used IE, I'd have to approve every single page and web site I went to. Yuck.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a month ago | (#47237619)

Turn that feature off it you dont need it, its there to specifically make web browsing hard on a server...

Re:Not sure what they mean... (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about a month ago | (#47237881)

If you called MS support you will think that you live in India.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (5, Insightful)

aix tom (902140) | about a month ago | (#47237389)

That is one of Googles great stupidities.

Just because I log in I via a French public hotspot, or a Dutch customers WLAN, doesn't mean I now magically speak French or Dutch, so why does Google switch everything to French and Dutch, despite all my OS and Browser settings still indicating German as primary language, with English as fallback?

Re:Not sure what they mean... (1)

Enry (630) | about a month ago | (#47237415)

Maybe Amazon would be a better example, since you'd normally want to go by default to that country's store regardless of language.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a month ago | (#47237455)

Go to ipv6.google.com (obviously, requires IPv6), it doesn't do that annoying geolocation.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237789)

In fact I am pretty sure most Dutch people want the Internet and their computer systems to use English.
But Google and Microsoft know better and shove Dutch into our faces.

In case you are wondering every company you work for has the English version of Microsoft Windows installed on everyone's desktop. However it is almost impossible to buy an English consumer version from shops. I am glad Windows 8 finally allows you to freely install language packs so we can use Dutch.

Imagine you have a computer problem, even if you are able to find it on the Internet, it is going to be very difficult to execute the fix of the problem because of all the translations.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238069)

Imagine you have a computer problem, even if you are able to find it on the Internet, it is going to be very difficult to execute the fix of the problem because of all the translations.

Yeah, difficult indeed, unless you LEARN FUCKING ENGLISH!

Think that's unfair? Tell ya what. Next time an African invents anything as big as the internet, we can all agree to speak Swahili or Afrikaans. You won't hear me complain then.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a month ago | (#47237927)

If only your browser sent a header telling the server what your preferred language was. Oh, wait, it does, and Google still thinks that I want to go to their Japanese page when I'm in Japan. One of the many reasons I switched to DuckDuckGo a few years ago...

Re:Not sure what they mean... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a month ago | (#47238245)

Google may not (yet) be doing evil, but more and more I find them Doing The Wrong Thing. As an example, I'm writing this on my desktop at home. If I go to Google Maps, my home address is my default location, which is what I want. It's also the default location on my laptop. However, if I'm traveling and change my laptop's default location, it's been changed on my desktop when I get home which is exactly what I don't want it to do. The right thing, of course, would be to store the default location on the computer, so that you can have several computers with different default locations, but I guess that's too obvious for Google.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (2)

xfade551 (2627499) | about a month ago | (#47237299)

I pretty sure this just means Microsoft ran out of IPv4 addresses that they bought for the specific purpose of their Azure service, so they are now "borrowing" addresses from their other address pools. This also means their Azure services are no longer one continuous block of addresses.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238103)

I suspect Microsoft may be making a big deal about this partly to encourage IPv6 adoption and partly because they may want to exert undue influence [arin.net] on the process by which the community develops IP addressing policy to arrive at a result more favorable to large corporations like themselves.

Today the rule is justified need, and many large companies might like to buy a 2 year or a 3 year supply of IP addresses, from anyone they can pay a big enough premium for addresses,but the community policies today just don't work that way; under current policies subject to justified need, if Microsoft follows the rules, they have to efficiently utilize all their allocations, before applying to transfer more resources.

Re:Not sure what they mean... (5, Informative)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47237317)

IP blocks are meant to be a drill-down system. For example, 128.230.x.x is indicates it's on the Syracuse University campus.... with the 16 bits worth of addresses being spread out so that a specific x in the third position would indicate what building to send the packet to.

Microsoft's problem here is that their Azure service has used every one of the IP addresses allocated to it... and Microsoft doesn't have any subnets remaining in the "USA Block" of their IP addresses... so they have to move IPs that would have been used overseas back into the Azure datacenter. As IPv4 continues to be used we're going to start to see more of these "we're running out!" stories.

OR (4, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | about a month ago | (#47237217)

there are no additional addresses available, Microsoft said in a blog post earlier this week. This requires the company to use the IPv4 address space available to it globally for new services,

OR they could migrate those services to IPv6??

Considering how much bashing MS gets for not being a leader, this would have made a really good opportunity for them.

(I hate it when people say they're doing something because they were "forced" or "had no choice", when in reality, they had aa choice, they made a choice, and now don't want to take ownership of the outcome)

Re: OR (1)

saloomy (2817221) | about a month ago | (#47237305)

From an iPhone on AT&T IPv6 does not work. Neither does it work on my Uverse connection. You can test ipv6 functionality by going to test-ipv6.org. From a hosting perspective, no one will want to use an IPv6 server unless their customers/clients/users can access it. The last-mile retail carriers need to implement v6 first. The situation is getting close to truly exhausting the v4 pool, and it's going to be too little too late very soon. Try and request an org, as, and v4 addresses from ARIN. You better be good at proving an ABSOLUTE NEED for them. They don't have any large blocks left. V6 isn't the same hassle, they hand them out like candy, so it's not a lasyness issue. It's Network admins not knowing how to configure it, old equipment, and end-user inaccessability that keep IaaS companies from switching.

Re: OR (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47237729)

From an iPhone on AT&T IPv6 does not work. Neither does it work on my Uverse connection.

Hell from most ISP's in North America that test doesn't work, because ISP's are so blindingly slow at upgrading that it'll be 2020 before they get around to implementing it on the home end. My ISP is Teksavvy, they have ipv6 on DSL, and are still waiting for rogers, cogeco, videotron who they use for the last mile service to get their act together.

Re: OR (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a month ago | (#47238307)

You can test ipv6 functionality by going to test-ipv6.org.

Alas, the site is down and whois shows that the registration has expired. However, test-ipv6.com [test-ipv6.com] is up and running if you need it.

Re: OR (1)

Yaztromo (655250) | about a month ago | (#47238359)

From an iPhone on AT&T IPv6 does not work. Neither does it work on my Uverse connection.

That's the fault of the connection, however, and not the iPhone. iOS if fully IPv6 compatible; I take advantage of it all the time. I even wrote an IPv6 test utility for iOS a few years ago. You just need a WiFi router with autoconf advertising IPv6 routes, an you're all set.

The fact that all too many North American ISPs still haven't got their IPv6 implementations in play is the real story here. Computers and most smart phones are ready to connect -- they just need the ISP support to do it.

Yaz

Re:OR (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about a month ago | (#47237349)

OR they could migrate those services to IPv6??

No. Most of the world are not on IPv6 yet. My ISP has only started making it available, and the (global) company I work does not even have a plan for IPv6.

Re:OR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237431)

The better reason not to use it on Azure is that Azure itself is not even capable of IPv6.

Re:OR (1)

steg0 (882875) | about a month ago | (#47238299)

Very true, at least on my Azure VMs there is no working IPv6 route. I couldn't believe this at first but it was confirmed by MS customer service. So even if some customers wanted it, they wouldn't get it.

I keep pestering them, maybe it helps someday.

Re:OR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237437)

Most of your world anyway. The majority of networks are dualstack and have been for years.

Re:OR (4, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | about a month ago | (#47237711)

At the top level the major transit networks support IPv6 and most of them have for years.
At the bottom level the end devices mostly support IPv6 though XP systems (which are still scarilly common) have it disabled by default

The problem comes in the middle, access providers and corporate network operators need to do the work to give the IPv6 capable devices they and their customers own access to the IPv6 internet. Many of them don't see doing so as a priority.

MS implemented a protocol called teredo to work arround this but it's fragile because it fights nat rather than working with it. It's also disabled by default on networks where a domain controller is detected (presumablly because MS didn't want to be accused of subverting corporate firewalls).

Most operating systems will preffer IPv6 when a native v6 connection is available and yet the ipv6 traffic as reported by the likes of google is in the single digit percentages.

Unfortunately I'm struggling to find good stats on how many users can access v6 only resources even though they preffer v4. Test-ipv6 has some stats but I don't consider them representitive of normal users. I remember seeing some stats a while back that said it was about half but I don't remember where

Re:OR (2)

marka63 (1237718) | about a month ago | (#47238231)

About 3.5% of Google's [google.com] traffic is IPv6. This is more than double what it was last year at this time. If the grow continues on this curve we will be at 10% within a year and a half. This sort of traffic is more than enough for sites to enable IPv6.

If you can enable IPv6 at home over 50% of typical home usage is IPv6 (Google and FaceBook). There is no reason for Consumer ISP's to not enable IPv6 as there is enough volume to make it worthwhile.

Re:OR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237465)

there are no additional addresses available, Microsoft said in a blog post earlier this week. This requires the company to use the IPv4 address space available to it globally for new services,

OR they could migrate those services to IPv6??

Considering how much bashing MS gets for not being a leader, this would have made a really good opportunity for them.

(I hate it when people say they're doing something because they were "forced" or "had no choice", when in reality, they had aa choice, they made a choice, and now don't want to take ownership of the outcome)

What good would migrating to IPv6 do when almost nobody could connect to it? Mod parent -1, 'duh'.

Re:OR (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about a month ago | (#47237553)

OR they could migrate those services to IPv6??

The last estimates I saw were that 50% of users were unable to access ipv6 only services. Many of the 50% who can will be using a fragile tunneling protocol that fights nat rather than working with it.

So services that need to be accessible to the general public need to be accessible on IPv4.

(I hate it when people say they're doing something because they were "forced" or "had no choice", when in reality, they had aa choice, they made a choice, and now don't want to take ownership of the outcome)

Of course sometimes there are no good choices, a growing hosting provider with an address shortage has to choose between grubbing together ipv4 addresses from whereever they can (causing routing table fragmentation, innaccurate gelocation and possiblly security problems) and watching their customers run off to someone who can give them the IPv4 addreses they require.

Where does one draw the line on "not having a choice"? is it where the other choices would be illegal? is it where all the other choices would be commercial suicide for the buisness division in question? is it somewhere else?

Re:OR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237865)

Nice idea, but as others have suggested, ISPs need to upgrade first.

I can't even get my employer to deploy IPv6 services. I work for the University of Michigan! http://www.itcom.itd.umich.edu... [umich.edu]

We haven't gotten adoption by large ISPs.. Comcast did it in 3 cities, wow.. i should be impressed. My comcast provided router doesn't support IPv6 on business class cable.

I think ARIN should start taking back IPv4 allocations to large ISPs and force them on IPv6 at this point.

Re:OR (1)

marka63 (1237718) | about a month ago | (#47238281)

Comcast has over 25% of their network IPv6 enabled [comcast6.net] as of November last year. This is much more that "3 cities".

As for taking back IPv4 addresses, that has to be the most ludicrous thing I have heard. There is a huge amount of IPv4 only content out there which you need IPv4 addresses to reach. Now you can make the consumer IPv6 only by use NAT64 + DNS64 to reach this content but you still need IPv4 addresses on the public side of the NAT64. Additionally NAT64 breaks functionality you get with having direct, unshared, IPv4 connectivity.

Re:OR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237907)

OR they could migrate those services to IPv6??

This is their Azure services - so it's their users asking for IPv4 addresses.
So yeah, migrating to IPv6 sounds like something the makers of Windows8 would do.

Re:OR (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a month ago | (#47237941)

Offer a discount for services that are willing to use v6-only. If you're hosting some back-end services in Azure, you can use v6. If it's something for only accessing within your organisation then you can possibly use v6, depending on your local connectivity. If it's something for the public then you can probably make a certain percentage of the servers v6-only and send customers with working v6 there (does Windows still set up v6 tunnels by default?).

If companies start to pay less for v6-only hosting than for v4-only or dual stack, then they're going to start pushing their customers towards the v6 servers, or making certain features v6-only to penalise ISPs that don't provide v6 connectivity by making their customers complain. That's what's going to trigger mass movement to v6.

Move to IPv6? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47238149)

or making certain features v6-only to penalise ISPs that don't provide v6 connectivity by making their customers complain.

"IPv6 is scheduled for testing in 2017. If you want it sooner, we don't have to care; we're the phone company." How many people are willing to move their family or their business from a city without an IPv6 capable cable, DSL or fiber ISP to one with one?

Re:OR (1)

sjames (1099) | about a month ago | (#47238109)

Yes, technically they could go v6 only and then listen to the crickets chirping because way too many potential users are v4 only, but that's not an especially good answer.

will geolocation work now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237231)

I tried to use Azure, but all of my EU-hosted virtual machines geolocated to US, and I wanted none of that.

Re:will geolocation work now? (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a month ago | (#47237371)

I tried to use Azure, but all of my EU-hosted virtual machines geolocated to US, and I wanted none of that.

Well, now you have a random chance of geolocating to the EU (or S America, or somewhere else)....

It would have made more sense for them to use the EU blocks they owned to host Azure EU services, but they just used their US Azure block until it was full.

One other thing this breaks, is that before you could set up a VPN service on local Azure and the world would think you were in the US. Now it's going to be the reverse. This will break any Azure services that are pulling data only allowed to those in the US.

Marketing trick (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237263)

Underprovisioning your cloud service in IP addresses (or in servers, bandwidth, etc) causes people to think that your service is growing faster than you expected. Brillant.

I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each atom (0)

pollarda (632730) | about a month ago | (#47237301)

of each member of my family. That way the various atoms can self report as to the location of their component parts bypassing the quantum mechanical problems of actually looking at electrons (for example) to find out where they are at and by looking changing their orbital pattern.

Facebook: Electron six is coming around the top bend at approximately 186,000mps, whoooeeeeeee!!!!!"
Electrons 5 and 9 narrowly avoided a collision at the bottom half of their orbit, only their charges saved them from a disastrous end.

If this catches on, we will probably start running out of IPv6 addresses sooner than originally thought. Besides, this is far more exciting than watching Facebook to see if your friends are going to the hardware store.

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237339)

Amazingly IPv6 will be sufficient for a long time:

2^128 IPv6 addresses * (1 atom / address) / (7*10^27 atoms/human) = 48 billion humans.

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (2)

stoploss (2842505) | about a month ago | (#47237473)

Amazingly IPv6 will be sufficient for a long time:

2^128 IPv6 addresses * (1 atom / address) / (7*10^27 atoms/human) = 48 billion humans.

Actually, why not solve it for all time? Given the estimate of 10^80 particles in the universe, then moving to 266 bit addressing (i.e. 80/log(2)) would allow each particle to be addressed individually. Bumping to 512 bit addressing would accommodate the typical logical addressing inefficiencies.

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a month ago | (#47237725)

You can still get around the address space limitations of ipv6 with NAT... but unlike IPv4, with IPv6 it is possible to design a NAT system that you can route packets through via extension headers, so even on the other side of a ipv6 NAT (which acts technically more like an extra 128 bit prefix on the ip address than it does a conventional NAT, but it still essentially functions the same way in that it would still change ip address headers like current ipv4 nats do), a computer could still potentially directly connect to yours.

Of course, some people might scream about security issues if this is done, but bear in mind that NAT isn't really something that one should be using for security anyways.

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238323)

NAT isn't something one should ONLY be using for security, but it's a damn useful tool in addition to other things. Those who want to take useful NAT away either aren't considering that, or they're considering it very carefully (like the NSA perhaps?)

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237753)

This will only solve it for people who think that addresses should be assigned to objects. Other people think that addresses should be assigned to locations. To solve that for all time you need to be able to address the volume of the observable universe in cubic Planck lengths.

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about a month ago | (#47237831)

This will only solve it for people who think that addresses should be assigned to objects.

I don't know about you, but every time I am communicating with something or someone, I am communicating with something physical rather than a location.

Do you have a use case for why we should be communicating based on locations rather than physical objects? Relativity would make your idea a real bitch. Furthermore, I don't care where my server is located (and I don't want to have to care, either), but with your idea our communication would involve constantly changing IPs for every Planck time (because, no doubt, both my device and my server are constantly in motion relative to your IP addressing scheme's frame of reference).

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about a month ago | (#47238195)

I agree that relativity would fuck that up, but do you seriously doubt that people want to communicate based on locations?

"There's a supernova nearby! Look out!".

But a perhaps better argument is that just because you can address every object, doesn't mean you're using the best addressing. Maybe with twice the address space you could implement multiple different hierarchies for different purposes, enabling more efficient multicast scenarios at the expense of memory-per-address.

Which would in fact be a large part of why we're jumping straight to 128 instead of just doubling to 64.

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (1)

GNious (953874) | about a month ago | (#47237805)

Actually, why not solve it for all time? Given the estimate of 10^80 particles in the universe, then moving to 266 bit addressing (i.e. 80/log(2)) would allow each particle to be addressed individually. Bumping to 512 bit addressing would accommodate the typical logical addressing inefficiencies.

Yeah, that'll work great, until we discover multiple universes...

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about a month ago | (#47237855)

Yeah, that'll work great, until we discover multiple universes...

The question then becomes "if there is another universe we cannot communicate with, do we really need to be able to address their physical particles with our communication networks?"

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (1)

pollarda (632730) | about a month ago | (#47238013)

It is a sure bet that once it gets codified into a standard that we can only communicate with our universe and integrated into a host of products, we will discover that we can in fact communicate with multiple universes. Luckily, there is the likely possibility that there are a host of other universes won't make this mistake.

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238111)

Re:I'm gonna assign a unique IP address to each at (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a month ago | (#47237955)

Hopefully everyone in this thread is joking, but it's worth noting that it's not quite that clear cut. The smallest assignment that an ISP can hand out is a /64, so you can really only have 2^64 sites. IPv6 has 2^128 addresses, but a lot of the design works around having sparse routing tables. You really want each /64 to correspond to a broadcast domain, and you don't want to fragment the routing tables too much to get to the /64, so you've actually got a lot fewer addresses. A /64 per human is not enough to assign one IP per atom in the person, but it likely is enough for every device that a person may reasonably want to own and give an IP to, even if that person has a lot of injected sensor nodes.

IP numbers are terrible (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47237309)

They're only really memorable to computers. Which is fine as far as it goes but IP4 addresses were something you could sorta remember if you dealt with the same number over and over again.

Obviously for internal networks there's no need for IP6. But even beyond that... I wonder if we couldn't improve on the DNS system so that we could assign names to IP addresses differently.

I don't know... something so we never have to work with the IP6 numbers which are so large and random that a human being really has no chance at remembering any of them short of the old copy paste.

Re: IP numbers are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237383)

Think of it like an address, depending on where you are, and who you are talking to you might only need the house number,being neighbors and all. Sometimes you need to specify to the country to get a package delivered.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237393)

mDNS is what you want, probably.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about a month ago | (#47237515)

Work with them for a bit assign them in a sensible manner. Been using IPv6 for a long time you remember your prefix fairly easily. I've got the ipv4 address of all my servers coded into the ipv6 address in human readable format. So I just go 2001:abcd:1234:5678::10:10:20:53 for 10.10.20.53. I do not work with desktops or "random" dhcp everything has consistent IP's.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237559)

> if you dealt with the same number over and over again.

You're doing it wrong.

> Obviously for internal networks there's no need for IP6

Internal call with cloud VoIP for a small and medium sized businesses.

> we never have to work with the IP6 numbers which are so large and random

IPv6 are inherently not random, IPv6 addresses are based on the MAC address. Unless the IPv6 privacy extension options are configured.

> a human being really has no chance at remembering any of them short of the old copy paste.

The problem here is non-programmer network flunkies are consistently unable to grasp dynamic networking concepts.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47237889)

I understand dynamic networking... what you don't understand is that those systems often don't work or develop bugs.

A static route bypasses the lookup routines. I can't tell you how many systems were set up to use dynamic lookups... worked just fine for a couple months... and then either became unreliable or stopped functioning altogether. The only thing that seems to work long term is a static route. When we do that... there are no problems basically ever again.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (2)

ledow (319597) | about a month ago | (#47237661)

Because, for 90% of business, the only guy who needs to care about the IP address is the IT department.

And they rarely deal with IP addresses and when they do it's mostly copy/paste from some spreadsheet or management program.

Nobody cares what the IP is, nobody memorises what the IP is (maybe fleetingly to type it in somewhere else, but pretty much that's a one-time thing. DHCP takes away all internal IP management apart from the occasional fixed static which is no worse than having asset numbers (which you still have to deal with).

As such, memorable IP numbering is not the problem. Never was. I don't know what the IP is of my external servers, I don't really care. I have them somewhere, no doubt, but who cares? You point the DNS at it once and you're done. You allocate the lease pool and you're done. About the only IP number the average IT team must know are the DNS servers and the default gateway (which is usually .1 for reasons that have everything to do with ease of remembering).

Large corporations don't have a guy memorising the IP's. If anything, they are even more in the dark about exactly what IP's they have and they use, because they never see them except in some asset management program.

When you go to IPv6, it's even less important. Just forget about it. Stick the IPv6 of your DNS into your DHCP servers and you NEVER have to know a single IPv6 address again. In fact, a lot of setups I've seen have this without even knowing - you can be running IPv6 without even realising until something goes wrong and you spot an IPv6 address.

Stop the damn excuses. Deploy IPv6. You want that many IP's, you need to have unwieldy numberings. If you want to assign, say, an alphanumeric code instead of a purely numeric one, it only helps for so long (and we'd have put all our IPv4's into hexadecimal if it didn't).

Nobody cares about SID's, MAC's, GUID's, UUID's, etc. and they are just as long. Get in the real world - where it DOES NOT MATTER how long the data is, your setup just uses technologies and protocols available today to make them memorable where they need to be.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47237879)

part of my sentiment is based on a long experience with automatic systems failing to find network assets unless they're set to static IPs. To that end, every time I run into this problem I just set the machine to static and then have every system that needs to find it link directly to that IP bypassing lookup.

I appreciate that the lookup works in many situations but often it does not.

The most consistent culprits are network printers. On initial installation they always work just fine. But give them a few months or years and they start developing character especially with their networking hardware. And that causes all sorts of machines to not be able to find them. The machines that can and can't tends to be random from what little I can see. But a static route fixes the issue and makes the machines reliable until mechanical failure takes them.

Having to deal with IP6 static routes would be annoying. That is largely where I'm coming from here.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238053)

When I was in IT, printers were on their own VLAN and nothing communicated directly to them except the print server. Everything else just connected to the print server. The printer VLAN was a single large VLAN and the print server tracked them by MAC address. Plug in a new printer to an Ethernet port, set that port to the printer VLAN, add the MAC address of the printer to the central printer DB, give it a name, done.

Re:IP numbers are terrible (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a month ago | (#47237727)

If you control the network then one option is to use IPv6 addresess that are not so large and random. In particular avoiding autoconfiguration based on mac addresses or ramdom numbers and assigning addresses manually in the conventional way (possiblly to match the machines v4 address)

Re:IP numbers are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237737)

Imagine for a moment if we used 64 or 128 bit addressing when the internet first got started. Do you think life would just be so terrible then, because we couldn't remember all these blasted numbers?
No, we would have figured out a way to make life easier. We'd set up name-to-number maps (global, area, machine or even script file: wherever appropriate) to refer to machines by names instead of numerical addresses.
If we assigned our servers fixed addresses, and we would, we'd have our fewer-bits network prefix memorized (or put in an alias so we don't have to remember it), and give the machines on the subnet easy-to-remember numbers like 1, 2, or 10. And we'd still name them even with such memorable numbers.

In the rare cases where you have to use a full address, like the systems are in a degenerate state and name servers are down, well, life's tough, but the bitter medicine is for a good reason: 32 bits is just not enough address space.

I have about 4 IPs at work memorized, but I VERY seldom need them and wouldn't suffer for not having them memorized. This is because I have arranged my work life so that I don't have to have them memorized.
And if I can remember 4 32-bit IPs, I can remember one ipv6 address, which is enough :)

Re:IP numbers are terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238023)

Every device in my network is addressable by name and it came working that way out of the box. Even my 8 year old retail consumer router picks up on these names and display them in the UI when looking at MAC addresses.

Excessively thick low lying clouds equals (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237319)

too foggy to follow your path to where you are going.

Time to lay off the unneccessary fog creation perhaps?

It's never... (3, Funny)

Virtucon (127420) | about a month ago | (#47237341)

It's never to late to procrastinate.

cloud networking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237513)

Cloud is forcing many legacy network problems to be solved.

Spanning tree, broadcast ARP, excessive IPv4 subnetting, and NAT.

Spanning tree to TRILL, broadcast ARP to multicast NDP with corresponding reduction in subnets and elimination of NAT for true end to end connectivity (think what happens with a Skype call in your house behind a NAT).

These cloud lead solutions all lead to radically simpler and more scalable networks.

Re:cloud networking (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a month ago | (#47238347)

(think what happens with a Skype call in your house behind a NAT)

I don't use Skype, but I do use other things, such as SSH to my desktop from my laptop when I'm on the road, that need to connect to a specific machine. I do that by giving my desktop a fixed IP on the LAN and forwarding the appropriate ports to it, while allowing other machines, such as my laptop when I need it at home, to use DHCP. As long as Skype uses a consistent set of ports, there's no reason I can see that this wouldn't work, and it's not that hard to set up, either.

Almost inexhaustible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237545)

It's only 4 times as long! Surely if we're only quadrupling the number of addresses, they'll get eaten up in a hurry.

the cause of this is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237591)

This is obviously caused by Global Warming. The models predicted it years ago.

Hoarders! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237623)

This is why we keep running out. In the beginning of the internets large enterprises[HP,Msoft,ATT,Level3,Cogent,etc.] gobbled up large swaths of address space and then didn't come close to using it all. So ARIN, whose existence is without purpose once their IPv4 printing press runs out of ink, keeps yelling from the rooftops that the sky is falling...but it is clearly not.

I know 128bit addressing sounds reasonable when one thinks about how many devices will one day be connected to the net...but the fact is that DNS is very vulnerable to hijacking....and maybe I don't want everything I own exposed to the world-wide-web-of-script-kiddies-and-bots. Call me a sadist, but I like having one central and strong firewall to manage performing NAT. I also like being able to memorize my public IP which I don't think I could do with 128bits.

Re:Hoarders! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237835)

Nice troll post.

lol, captia: honest

No more private networks? (1)

Foreign Entity (2296290) | about a month ago | (#47237663)

I'm currently building a new router, so I did some research thinking now might be a good time to make the switch to IPv6. I found this: http://www.kloepfer.org/ipv6-h... [kloepfer.org] Is there really no way to implement IPv6 without making every one of my machines dependent on the DHCP whims of my ISP?

Re:No more private networks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237713)

I don't want to live in a world where Cox Cable has to route my print jobs to my network printer three feet away.

Re:No more private networks? (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about a month ago | (#47237877)

Why on earth would you need to do that?

Re:No more private networks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237819)

A network interface can have multiple addresses assigned. Just use Unique Local [unique-local-ipv6.com] prefix for your local networking needs.

Re:No more private networks? (1)

raxx7 (205260) | about a month ago | (#47237873)

Yes and no.

Yes, you'll need to assign every one of your machines an address which is based on the prefix assigned to you by your ISP.
In the absence of NAT66, your computers will need these addresses to access the internet.

No, you can additionally assign your machines an address based on a unique local address prefix.
You should to use a randomly generated ULA prefix to avoid future conflicts (eg, you need to establish a VPN to another network also using ULA).
But otherwise, it's legal to use a trivial prefix (FD00:whatever).

Re:No more private networks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238079)

Why would you have to assign IPs to devices? They just automatically get their new prefixes and pick a /64.

Re:No more private networks? (1)

raxx7 (205260) | about a month ago | (#47238105)

By assign, I mean giving them an address.
Whether it's by static configuration, stateless auto-configuration or DHCP.

Where is IPv7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47237959)

When is the IETF going to smarten up and design a new IP protocol that is backwards compatible with IPv4 and can solve the address exhaustion problem?

Guess what: If you design a new system that causes widespread frustration and expense, then you cannot expect widespread adoption. If you want to push out a new system, make it (1) clearly better and (2) easy to migrate with low costs and east uptake. IPv6 may be technically far superior, but it fails on point "2". Time for a rethink.

Re:Where is IPv7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238117)

Had the Forefathers of IP used 64 bit addresses, would we be having this conversation? And if 128 bit is decreed, why not keep the .8 bit 0-255 numbering scheme instead of hex?

It has everything network engineers know and understand of IPv4, only with additional octets. Presumably 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x could act as a compatibility layer to present IPv4 addressing. Had this of been the way of IPv6 I'm almost certain adoption would be more widespread.

Re:Where is IPv7? (1)

marka63 (1237718) | about a month ago | (#47238355)

255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255 vs ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff

Which would you rather type, read etc.

Global Warming and IP Address Exhaustion (3, Insightful)

statemachine (840641) | about a month ago | (#47238147)

I think the deniers are the same people, with the same arguments.

It's easy to spot the people who don't know what they're talking about. Over the last few days:

1) Just re-assign multicast!
2) Hey, they don't appear to be using those addresses, let's take those!
3) Double/Triple-NAT is good enough for me and everyone else!
4) Let's give out one IP address to everyone and we'll be set for awhile!
5) Let's make a new protocol!
6) IPv6 addresses are too big to remember!
7) You just need to sell it better!

All of those show fundamental misunderstandings about networking. And that part is OK. The problem is that people think they know about flying a plane because they've flown a paper airplane.

Calm down people. Stop trying to barge into the cockpit.

That's going to screw up the map. (4, Funny)

saccade.com (771661) | about a month ago | (#47238157)

Leave it to Microsoft to screw up the map. [xkcd.com]

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47238295)

Why not simply require everything in the cloud to use IPv6 with IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels as necessary?

For public-facing services that don't want to have customers use IPv4, have an IPv4-IPv6 translating proxy.

IPv6 is inherently faster, more secure, more robust and more in tune with how people use hardware these days. IPv4 is dead, I wish Netcraft would confirm it, but until it does, there is absolutely no benefit in running IPv4 in the cloud. The cloud's architecture is ideal for IPv6, you need less memory on the routers, the configuration is simpler and the configurations are self-maintaining in a proper setup.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...