We are running out of internet addresses

[k4kyv]

Along with the unstoppable Gulf oil leak and the imminent possibility of Korean War II, we have still another worry: within 18 months it is estimated that the number of new devices able to connect to the world wide web will plummet as we run out of "IP addresses" -- the unique codes that provide access to the internet for everything from PCs to smart phones. Some estimate that by September 2011 the last large batches of addresses will be issued, meaning that months after that date there will be no new addresses available.

There is a solution to the problem, but will action be taken in time?  Read on...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/27/internet.crunch.2012/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

[Superhet66]

"Management by disaster"
Interesting. Someone dropped the ball. It seems like it could be an opportunity for positive change also.

[KF1Z]

Probably the same morons who couldn't forsee the future well enough to know the year 2000 was coming......
 

[flintstone mop]

I'm sure "they" will finger something out, by then

Fred

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

And Apple is now worth more than Microsoft. The world will end tomorrow.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2011967918_appleworthmorethanmicrosoft.html

[ka3zlr]

..."ask not what the internet can do for you, but you can do for ..etc etc etc

phoney baloney...


73

Jack.

[KA1ZGC]

This story gets run about about once a year. I first saw "we're running out of IPs" hit the major news outlets almost ten years ago.

IPv6 somewhat addresses this by using four numbers of 32-bit values (instead of 8-bit), but some genius thought it would be a great idea to absorb the link-layer address into the network-layer address, which severely limits its flexibility (and totally contradicts the whole concept of layered networking).

IPv4 was pretty much developed by UC Berkeley and BBN to do exactly what it needs to. IPv6 was designed by committee to do everything that everyone involved wanted it to do. That's the real reason IPv6 has little traction, nobody really likes the implementation. The number of potential addresses is not the only difference between the two protocols.

Much like the already-mentioned Y2k scare, this gets sensationalized far more than it needs to, except I wouldn't say I'm a "moron" because I had no reason to believe that anybody would still be running a piece of code I wrote in 1983.

...mind you, I still run radios that were built in 1952, so I guess I'm not one to talk. 

If all else fails, we can shoot the internet full of bits of tires and golf balls and cover it in cement.

[K5UJ]

We'll just have to use ham radio instead of the internet 

I'm workin' out the kinks on my new rx loop tonight 

[KX5JT]

Hmmm... Isn't this supposed to be Al Gores responsibility!?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

We'll just have to use ham radio instead of the internet 

I'm workin' out the kinks on my new rx loop tonight 

That looks scary!

[K5UJ]

Pete, I plan to tell anyone who asks about the rx loop that it's a fire worship ring for Burning Man this Labor Day.

I read the CNN story.  The problem seems to be (to my thinking) that all these gadgets like the iPhone that aren't connected to the internet all the time have dedicated IP addresses.  That's ridiculous.  They should all share addresses since not all of the gadgets are connected 24/7 much the way cell phones share frequencies. 

[KA1ZGC]

I read the CNN story.  The problem seems to be (to my thinking) that all these gadgets like the iPhone that aren't connected to the internet all the time have dedicated IP addresses.

The real problem I saw was with the story itself. The one and only source of information in the story is someone saying we all need to cut over to IPv6 right now or the sky will fall. There are reasons why IPv6 has all the traction of digital AM, but nobody explored (or even mentioned the possibility of) that. Basically, one reporter got hijacked by an IPv6 zealot whose editorializing got carried as a real news story.

Of course, looking at the other side of the story (or even trying to look for the other side of the story) is a lot like work, and far less sensational than "the internet is about to die". Objectivity can go pound sand when there's money to be made yelling "fire" in crowded theaters.

That's ridiculous.  They should all share addresses since not all of the gadgets are connected 24/7 much the way cell phones share frequencies. 

Many do, and the carriers are taking steps to address these limits, but again there was no follow-up on that. The whole story was one guy's opinions being presented as facts because they come from a "credible source" (even though they're still mostly just one guy's opinions).

News outlets are in such a rush to beat each other to the punch with every snippet of information they get, that they no longer exercise due diligence before publishing a story. Retractions and corrections are cheaper than coming in second.

This news story is not a news story, it's a transcript of one conversation between one reporter and one talking head moping like a jilted lover because IPv6 isn't universally loved by everyone.

The sky isn't falling, the internet is not going away, and IPv6 is not the panacea of all networking ills.

[ka3zlr]

...Well Put, Well said.....

73

Jack.

[W1ATR]

Ehhh, they just need to install some more internet tubes and everything will be fine.

[ke7trp]

BS. 

Another case where we should fine and enforce 24 hours of black out on this channel for reporting untrue information.

C

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I guess if "we" say it's not true, it must be "not true"   

[KA1ZGC]

Another case where we should fine and enforce 24 hours of black out on this channel for reporting untrue information.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

It's not just them. All the major news outlets are similarly afflicted, and any one of them would probably have run the a very similar story.

When all the news was reported together in set intervals (weekly newspapers, then daily newspapers, then radio newscasts, then broadcast TV newscasts), then reporters and editorial staff had ample time to get two independent confirmations of every fact they published, and wouldn't have dreamed publishing anything otherwise.

It's not that way anymore. The last 30 years saw proliferation of 24-hour news channels, then public access to the internet. In order to keep up, everyone has to be first to report everything. News outlets now have to compete with blogs, who don't even have to pretend to conform to the standards journalists do. The integrity of the entire industry is only as strong as its weakest link.

No point shooting the messenger just because the papyrus is blank.

It wouldn't be that difficult for ISPs to quickly start issuing IPv6 to home and mobile users, etc. It's the large internal business networks that would need time to make the conversion and some probably wouldn’t even do it. They only use one or two outside IPs anyway and the rest are all internal and hidden from the outside world for the most part.

Exactly right. The building I work in has a network infrastructure that is stunningly and embarrassingly outdated. It has all it can do to manage a moderate IPv4 workload. 15-20 years old, most of it.

Still, I think there's a lot about the original numbering scheme that turned out to be a waste of vast swaths of address space: 127.x.y.z never leaves your computer (do you really need 16,777,216 IP addresses for use on only one machine?), every ham who ever did TCP/IP over the air got at least one world-routable IP address (I had 44.118.1.77, which was only usable with a specific node on a specific frequency), just for two easy examples.

IANA has tried to rectify some of these, but a lot of them are too much of a legacy to do anything about.

For the most part, few are going to migrate until they absolutely have to. Legacy support for IPv4 will live on for decades out of necessity, so it's not like IPv6 can really be touted as a replacement for anything.

I guess if "we" say it's not true, it must be "not true"   

Since "we" have some years of expertise in this field, too, "we" have certainly earned the right to say such things. What conclusions should be drawn from them is left as an exercise for the reader (the way it's supposed to be).