What happens when the Internet runs out of IP addresses?

>>43017967
ipv6

Companies that have large quantities of them will probably begin to sell blocks
>inb4 ipv6

>>43017967
weve been out for a while now
>>43017994
too late

We'll enter the IPv6 era, where every single person will have a static address assigned to their identity (due to a large pool of IPv6), which will allow NSA and other national spying agencies to track internet activity even more than they do now.

>>43018015
IPv6 only allows static IP?

ipv6

>what if they run out
ipv9001

>>43018015
Does this means the Jews can keep tab on everybody?

>>43018026
No, but the address pool is large enough to assign a static address for every single device, which will most likely be a common practice to track the activity of individual users.

>>43018041
Yes.

>>43017967
That's an IPv4 address OP. theoretically IPv6 has such a large address size that we won't be able to use them all in our lifetimes. lol @ esoteric in captcha.

>>43018061
If dynamic IP is "disabled" (Technically possible but pushed-away), I think I'll either commit suicide or buy a separate device for every usage case and rely on public-wireless connections.

>>43018148

Or just use a proxy or VPN.

>>43018268
Proxy.org always has the shittiest ones though.

Static IPs mean absolutely nothing for the NSA or ISP capabilities of tracking you. They can do that just fine with dynamic IPs due to logs that are kept.

However it'll be much easier for websites and advertisers to keep track of people.

>People saying IPv6 like they believe it

You poor, naive, fools.

>>43018336
So does this mean people could no longer ban evade? :-O

>>43018366
You can probably request a new IP.

>>43018341
Isn't this what naturally comes after IPv4 though?

>>43018384
But wouldn't that mean you would have to bother your phone company in order to obtain one?

>>43018386
The only thing that happens naturally in networking is that everyone gets drunk and charges it back on expenses.

IPv6 transit isn't even reliable yet, and some places it's still impossible to get because the transit providers haven't upgraded their routers to support it in some smaller places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers is a pretty sad state of affairs.

>>43018061
I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure one of the things that will be happening more with IPv6 is that home broadband users will be assigned public subnets to use instead of just one public address with masqueraded clients.
This means that all your computers in your home network will have public addresses and private addresses won't really be much of a thing, though you should still be able to set up v6 masquerading on your router.

This has its good and bad points but it may be up to you to set up your firewalls properly in your homes.

If it is the case that everyone gets a large subnet of public addresses to use in their home, it doesn't mean that you can just change your address to evade IP-bans or stop tracking or whatever because it's most likely that people will start blocking the small subnets instead of individual addresses.

File: 1405261415412.jpg (42KB, 741x486px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 741x486px

>>43018148
> trusting public-wireless connections for, well, anything
> 2013+1
> ishygddt

>>43018432
But they will eventually have to upgrade their shit when the IP crisis becomes unavoidable, right?

>>43018467
The IP crisis became unavoidable a decade ago, and they should have been finished doing something about it five years ago, The real core of the problem is that transit providers and ISPs and service providers who rely on networks are all cheap bastards.

I work for a company you've heard of, and rely on for various bits of internet infrastructure, and we had routers in major sites that hadn't had a TAC contract for nearly 8 years.

>>43018061
>>43018015
>>43018026
>>43018027
>>43018148
>>43018432
The true face of /g/ comes out.
Technical ignoramuses...

File: 1405150667554.jpg (96KB, 521x403px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 521x403px

>>43018544
>He doesn't know anything about one specific area of tech
>IGNORANUS

>>43018544
Except >>43018432 is correct. There are places you can not get IPv6 transit and even if you do, there's no guarantee you'll be able to actually route to every other IPv6 network.

>>43017967
They just keep adding NATs on higher levels.
Many ISPs are already doing this.

>>43018539
Why doesn't the US government step in and make this crisis more known?

>>43018694
Because they're probably waiting for the perfect time to play it in their favor.

>>43018605
Within the IPv6 protocol there is backward compatibility to IPv4, so technically he is not correct. Their ISPs would still have time to convert and evaluate what it means to convert long before they actually needed to.

These protocols have a lot of though and consideration put into them, they aren't written by /g/.

>>43017967
NAT will happen

as ISPs no longer can provide a single IP address per user, IP sharing will be put in place

this is most cost-effective solution for service providers as IPv6 adoption is still pretty low

>>43018741
>Within the IPv6 protocol there is backward compatibility to IPv4, so technically he is not correct

That just means you can route v4 over a v6 network. You can't put v6 over a v4 network. If the transit won't route v6 packets, I can't very well send them v6 packets.

>>43018600
If you consider computer networking taken as a whole to be a specific area of computer technology, you can continue to berate me. Otherwise, it's time for you to stop posting.

>>43018816
What it means is that larger corporations can begin converting to IPv6 as a process and slowly begin to pressure smaller ISPs to make the transition as well.

This change isn't made to happen overnight. Nobody is sitting at the control board waiting to flip the switch, tapping their foots at Cleetus and Selma who route their packets over a dead rat at Fuckall ISP, Inc to upgrade.

>>43018544
STFU NSA shill and take your IPv6 with you.

The IPv4 scarcity is artificial. Why does the DoD need 280 million IP addresses? What's wrong with NATs? Why do IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the used network card (or a "random" chunk generated off the MAC address). Why can you pinpoint someones location by his IPv6 address, why is that needed, why ain't they more random?

Fuck off NSA. Thanks.

>>43018914
>This change isn't made to happen overnight.

It's not like IPv6 is a new thing. It hasn't even happened over a decade. It's unlikely to be finished in the next decade.

>Nobody is sitting at the control board waiting to flip the switch, tapping their foots at Cleetus and Selma who route their packets over a dead rat at Fuckall ISP, Inc to upgrade.

It isn't even that, though: there is still major infrastructure out there with no IPv6 or poor IPv6. You can't even guarantee that if you send off a v6 packet to your transit that your provider can even route it to the other end; the v6 network is still patchy and full of holes. This isn't Bumfuck Networks Inc., these are major tier 1 providers.

Once cgNAT kicks in there'll be even less pressure to finally start supporting IPv6.

>>43019001
>The IPv4 scarcity is artificial. Why does the DoD need 280 million IP addresses?

Sure, and HP have two /8's: but who's going to pay for them to vacate those address blocks? They've carved their address space up into all sorts of networks, some of which are in use internally. It'd cost them tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, to renumber everything to empty out those blocks. And all for a lousy /8 or two that would be gone within months.

File: 1248964241176.png (131KB, 299x385px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 299x385px

>>43019006
>hear about cgNAT a while back
>Look it up
>MFW I work for an ISP and we also do Voip

>>43017967

Run out of IP top kek
there are 340 undecillion IPv6 addresses!

>>43019001
>The IPv4 scarcity is artificial.
no it isn't. there are more internet-connected devices than ipv4 can support.

>Why does the DoD need 280 million IP addresses?
because fuck you that's why

>What's wrong with NATs?
NAT (specifically PAT) is a stop-gap, not a solution. NAT and PAT requires a lot of processing and memory for large networks. Its a huge fucking headache.

>Why do IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the used network card (or a "random" chunk generated off the MAC address).
they don't. besides, what the fuck does it matter?

>Why can you pinpoint someones location by his IPv6 address, why is that needed, why ain't they more random?
the device identifier from the auto-configuration is random. also, you can very easily pinpoint your location with an IPv4 address anyways. aside from all that, everything you do is tracked and it has nothing to do with your IP address.

>>43018694
FCC is run by cable goons. Government will never step in.

>>43019006
IPv6 hasn't happened because it doesn't need to happen. That doesn't mean it *can't* happen.
An ISP can theoretically run a completely IPv6 network apart from the edge routers and still reach every computer they could on an IPv4 network, and vice versa. As end users, it really doesn't matter to us what they use. The burden of making it work or even of evaluating it as a product at this point isn't on us as consumers. It's on the ISPs.

If I am an ISP and I want to go full IPv6 I can do it any time I want, the rest of the Internet be damned.

>>43018341
we allready running all our servers on dual stack at work. Occasionally the traffic is pretty 'high' over IPv6, too

>>43019001
For someone who is so tinfoil you know very little about internet security.
IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the network card on occasion because that happens to be a very solid working model for preventing IP conflicts. There are others too.

It doesn't even matter what IP your Macbook has at any point and on any protocol because your router is going to provide NAT as a security measure anyway. What you're worrying about is literally a non-issue.

>Why can you pinpoint someones location by his IPv6 address,
You can do that with IPv4 or even your credit card number if you know the right people.

>>43017967
>What happens when the Internet runs out of IP addresses?
We ran out almost two years ago, OP.

http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion

>>43019320
>If I am an ISP and I want to go full IPv6 I can do it any time I want

Which is my point; they're cheap bastards, which is why it hasn't happened.

>the rest of the Internet be damned.

Not if you're an Internet Service Provider. You kind of have to provide service to the internet. That's kind of your job.

>>43019131
NSA shills in full force I see...

>>Why do IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the used network card (or a "random" chunk generated off the MAC address).
>they don't. besides, what the fuck does it matter?
It matters specially in combination with the part of you IPv6 address that depends on location.

You start traveling around, first bits of your IPv6 address change according to your location, the part based on the MAC address of your devices NIC stay. Metadata in it's finest form.

Now fuck off and lemme enjoy my NAT.

File: 57986512.jpg (25KB, 281x291px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 281x291px

there are more ip addresses than atoms in the universe

>>43019443
>the part based on the MAC address of your devices NIC stay.
no it doesn't. it's not based on the device MAC.

>>43019420
>Which is my point; they're cheap bastards, which is why it hasn't happened.
There isn't a good reason to make it happen. Do you think your internet speeds are going to double just because you're on IPv6? Because there is no other reason to provide IPv6 to a network other than to allow more devices with a unique IP on it.
>Not if you're an Internet Service Provider. You kind of have to provide service to the internet. That's kind of your job.
You don't understand, by issuing IPv6 addresses in the IPv6-IPv4 compatibility range you compromise *no* service whatsoever. Everyone can reach everyone, but you're on IPv6.

I love how /g/ thinks that NAT is a security measure and that devices behind NAT are unreachable (they're not, your home router has a shitty PAT implementation which is easily crackable).

I also love how /g/ seems to be completely oblivious to how firewalls work and that they actually believe that every single device is going to be addressable with IPv6.

>>43019420
It's not up to the ISPs really.

There is no demand for IPv6 because there is no IPv6 content, there is no IPv6 content because there is no IPv6 demand.

They might have also come up with an IP version that was slightly less autistic.

Alphabet agencies are also not interested in it as it makes their jobs more difficult.

>>43019395
>It doesn't even matter what IP your Macbook has at any point and on any protocol because your router is going to provide NAT as a security measure anyway. What you're worrying about is literally a non-issue.

Lol dude, you put it in such a convincing way, I almost believed you.

If it's a non issue, why are things like this proposed:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3041

And even this is a shitty solution.

>>43019414
No, we ran out of unallocated IPs, there's still a ton of IPs allocated to ISPs that aren't being used.
IPv6 still has problems in implementation and hopefully we'll be able to continue NATing IPv4 to the point IPv6 is fixed and able to be widely deployed

>>43019501
>There isn't a good reason to make it happen.

Apart from having no IP addresses left and everyone scrambling to do cgNAT.

>You don't understand, by issuing IPv6 addresses in the IPv6-IPv4 compatibility range you compromise *no* service whatsoever.

That only holds true if EVERYONE uses IPv6 address in the IPv4 compat. range, and they're not. There are entire AS's that are not routeable from certain tier 1 providers.

>>43019522
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3041

What if I am running a small business and don't have any reason to maintain my own DHCP server?

It's basically a really elegant solution to IP address resolution for people who don't need to specify DHCP options. But it's meant to be used for PRIVATE networks, not the world-wide web.

So what's the estimated date for IPv4 addresses to run out?

That's probably when I'll stop using the internet.

>>43019547
ISPs, no. Large companies, yes.

Hopefully they won't give them away, forcing us to move to IPv6.

IPv6 isn't broken, anon. Stop spreading FUD.

File: eeeeeeeeeeee.jpg (4KB, 111x147px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 111x147px

>tfw my 2009 Nokia phone support ipv6


Feels good to be master Nokia race.

>>43017967
it shuts down

>>43019618
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

Apparently February NEXT YEAR, is when shit hits the fan.

Ouch.
Internet prices finally gonna go up, can't wait.

IPv6 will never happen. Too many devices out there that are v4 only.

Until they figure out that they're going to have to make a network that will seamlessly integrate v4, we're going to be stuck with v4 and figure out how to reclaim addresses and better use NAT.

>>43019750
>IPv6 will never happen.
It'll have to eventually, right? No other solutions to the IP crisis.

>>43019650
>"Hey, instead of letting the machine request an IP, we'll allow any router to force it an IP on its network"
>IPv6 RA flood attack ensues and Microsoft alone takes 3 years to fix their implementation which previously would just continue accepting IPs from a spoofed router until the OS crashed

>not broken

We've made the OSes have to do sanity checks for when a flood might be occurring rather than just not use such a backward system, but hey IPv6 is fuckold.

>>43019750


>>43019750
IPv6 is a super old standard that has had support from all the major OSes since like 2000. Who *doesn't* support IPv6? Some cheap knockoff iPhone or something?

>>43019789
Like I said, they'll have to make something that will seamlessly integrate v4. Stop trying to push an obviously broken protocol and work on something that will just fucking work without making millions of devices instantly obsolete.

>>43019840
what millions of devices? Do you realize how fucking old IPv6 is? Every major company has supported it for years

>>43019840
>obviously broken protocol
you mean ipv4?

>That only holds true if EVERYONE uses IPv6 address in the IPv4 compat. range, and they're not. There are entire AS's that are not routeable from certain tier 1 providers.
Your argument is that ISPs providing an IPv6 to customers is not functional model because you cannot achieve good routing all the time by using it. I refuted that claim by mentioning the compatibility range.

Regardless of what other people do or are doing, my statement will be true.

As far as adoption is concern, adoption is low because most people are still using and preferring IPv4 because they don't have a problem using it. Unless you live in Botswana, it probably isn't an issue for you either. The fact that only about 8% of the edge routers in the US have adopted IPv6 is a function of the fact that IPv4 works great for them and they don't see a reason to change. It is *not* a statement of whether their tier1 servers can handle IPv6, and in fact their adoption rates are up compared to nations which *are* being affected by IPv4 exhaustion.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption

IPv4 addresses are being freed as we speak.
I didn't even get a dedicated IP from my ISP before I threw a shitfit. They just kept giving me private 10.x.x.x range IPs and NATed them. I had to talk to four levels of support of my ISP to get them to change that.

>>43020028
You're just going around in circles. You also seem to be agreeing with me.

"We don't need it is" is a euphemism for "We aren't going to pay for it".

File: cereal_guy_spitting_by_rober_raik-d4clu6f.png (56KB, 1115x716px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1115x716px

>>43018694

dis iz y2k all uber agan

>>43017967
ipv5 masterrace here
i'm using ipv5 which is a secret protocole, only the elite can use it
it is as ipv4 but with 5 dots
XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
every network card is compatible, because it's tunneled from a unique ipv4 main server
i'm using youporn on ipv5 right now, the quality is much better, there is lot more videos in full HD and 4K

>>43020028
It's not that they do not support it, it's that they're not set up for it. Router manufacturers have been pushing IPv6 support for years. It's the fucking people managing the routers that haven't enabled IPv6 yet.

>>43020357
>Router manufacturers have been pushing IPv6 support for years

Yes, provided you replace your "old" routers which don't support IPv6. Preferably by spending money on new routers, from them. Which is one reason uptake has been slow.

>>43020078
>"We don't need it is" is a euphemism for "We aren't going to pay for it".
Then why are the countries that are being affected by bandwidth exhaustion today more than any other so slow to adopt IPv6?

>>43020393
>bandwidth exhaustion

I'll assume that was a thinko?

>>43020393
Because the ones running out addresses have the most infrastructure already invested and thus face the highest cost to replace it & upgrade it.

>>43020357
If you plug your router into the wall and don't get an IP, you call your ISP right?
And your ISP says, "Oh shit we're out of IPs, enable IPv6 or dieeee!
What do you say?
>FUCK NO I AIN'T PUTTING YOUR FILTHY PORNO ON MY COMPOOT
No. You enable IPv6.
Hence, there is no IPv4 crisis as of today.

>>43020426
No, it's the other way around, the ones who aren't running out of addresses are the ones making the switch the soonest.

>>43017967
IPv4 has 12 digits 0-9 and we are running out
phone numbers have 10 digits 0-9 and no one talks about it

explain yourself

>>43020463
>No, it's the other way around

Er...

>the ones who aren't running out of addresses are the ones making the switch the soonest.

Yes. That's what I said.

>Because the ones running out addresses have the most infrastructure already invested and thus face the highest cost to replace it & upgrade it.

What happened to ipv5?

>>43020337
i'm also part of the "chosen"
poor people can't access to http://1249763400/

>>43020475
country codes

You just watch. A bunch of ISPs will get together one day and decide they're going to have an IPv6 rollover day. On that day, they will disable IPv4 and tell people to switch to IPv6, blaming the other ISPs for pressuring them into it.
>Yeah jee sorry anon everyone else was doing it and so facebook was going to be down and they aren't switching back so we figured it would be best to cut our service too since it would only be useful for like three people on our network after today
And they'd make it a holiday and everyone would get the day off.
And people would probably die because they'd try to email an emergency hotline but for that you have only yourselves to blame for not switching sooner.

>>43020487
>the ones running out addresses
>face the highest cost to replace it & upgrade it.
What is a higher cost than losing customers because the internet no worko?

>>43020475
>0-9
But IPs range from 0 to 255. And two host addresses are reserved for every subnet.
And yeah, >>43020507

>>43020570
When that starts happening you might start to see some movement.

People start taking IPv6 seriously.

>>43018287
...so use a different proxy or a vpn.
are you fucking retarded?

>"just use some soap or body wash"
>"B-B-B-B-BUT IRISH SPRING SUCKS!!"

I'm just sick of getting used dirty IPs from AT&T on my phone. half the time I post it says I'm banned, cause I get a new IP every time I turn on 4G.

>>43020703
if you're on 4G it should be generating a fresh IP every time you connect. If not, AT&T is even shittier than I thought possible.

>>43017967
>2014
>Not switching to IPv6
>Not telling people who want to connect to you over IPv4 to use a Teredo tunnel

>>43020737
I do get a new IP. But its not fresh, since I am somehow banned. Usually it says it was cause a post on /v/ for some reason. I guess /v/ loves at&t and shitposting.

>>43020737
I once got an IP on 4G that was banned for CP.
What the actual fuck even.

>>43020823
that's what I'm saying. there are more than enough IPv6 for every human on earth to use 1 million addresses per second until the sun burns out. there is absolutely no fucking excuse whatsoever for the same address to be reused.

>>43020875

doesn't piss me off as much as phone companies re-using phone numbers. Had a tracphone before, with a number that probably belonged to some crack dealer. Lots of interesting calls. Most people I know with contracts get random calls as well all the time, with people asking for someone else.

>>43020856
that used to happen a lot when I posted from a VPN, I would try to post and it would sometimes say I was banned (usually for cp, spam, or shitposting) because someone else had gotten that particular IP banned.

Pretty scary because I was posting with my pass, which I paid for while on my real IP.

>>43020936
not quite that bad, but my phone number used to belong to this bitch named Diane, who apparently had lots of debt and some very severe medical issues that warranted her doctor calling 3 times in one day. I would answer and tell them that I'm not her whenever possible, but the calls still continue, often from the same numbers I tell to fuck off.

>>43018015
I doubt it. There's still issues where two companies will put out devices with the same MAC addresses, and even issues with single companies using the same MAC addresses for every device.

Also spoofing.

I've heard that multiple nations are wanting to implement a system where every square mile of the planet's surface is assigned its own set of IP addresses, completely dropping IPv4. Is this IPv6 or a newer version?

>>43017967
ipv6 or nat.
take your pick

>>43017967

Geek Squad sends out the Ninja assassins, off a few users...

Everything back to normal...

File: nanobots.png (49KB, 740x251px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 740x251px

>>43017967
>I think the IETF hit the right balance with the 128 bits thing. We can fit MAC addresses in a /64 subnet, and the nanobots will only be able to devour half the planet.

>>43023220
That cartoon is inaccurate. There are more than enough IPs in the IPv6 range to assign one IP to each atom (not even molecule, atom) in the sun.

>>43023261
http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/865:_Nanobots

>>43023275
>http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/865:_Nanobots
You can't do that sort of calculation by volume. I don't know what to tell you.