
IPv4 Depletion - paralelogram
https://arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
======
Animats
Mobile should have been IPv6 from the beginning. In China, it mostly is. If we
could get all the handsets on IPv6, that would free up much address space.
T-Mobile has been pushing IPv6, but they had problems with Skype and WhatsApp,
which apparently don't talk IPv6 properly.

~~~
betaby
Interesting, especially in the light of google reported ~2 percent IPv6
penetration in China. My personal experience in managing somewhat popular
sites (dual stack) in line with Google reported numbers.
[https://www.google.ca/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-c...](https://www.google.ca/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-
country-ipv6-adoption)

~~~
porjo
AFAIK Google web-based services aren't that popular in China, so IPv6 metrics
there are kinda irrelevant.

~~~
betaby
Randomly distributed sampling should give the same percentage.

------
nodesocket
Is ipv4 depletion an issue for the big cloud providers (Amazon , Google,
DigitalOcean, Rackspace)? How many ips do they have left?

~~~
ay
The most widely known is Azure, when they had to shuffle addresses around:

[http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/06/ipv4-e...](http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/06/ipv4-exhaustion-
gets-real-microsoft-runs-out-of-u-s-addresses-for-azure-cloud-time-to-move-to-
ipv6/)

Google already started charging a nominal fee for idle IPv4 addresses:
[https://cloud.google.com/sql/](https://cloud.google.com/sql/), search for
"Idle IPv4 address"

------
bluedevil2k
There's a secondary market that is surprisingly lacking in interest. I have a
site that brokers large blocks of IPv4 to interested parties, and the most
interest I've seen is for a /21\. We have a /8 and can not come anywhere close
to drumming up interest for it.

[http://ipv4hub.com](http://ipv4hub.com)

~~~
porjo
There is a lot of FUD surrounding this market. Apparently Iran has been buying
blocks of IPv4 from Romania, only to discover that the Romanians were
continuing to advertise those same blocks after the sale!! See
[https://youtu.be/Jn5ztZSigHA](https://youtu.be/Jn5ztZSigHA)

~~~
MertsA
That's pretty egregious, why the heck did the romanian upstream peers not just
drop them after they started obviously highjacking the /23? I mean you have
something that is obviously not just some misconfiguration, if you know that
one of your peers is intentionally hijacking some prefix why would you be
complacent in being a part of their fraud?

------
na85
They really just need to set a date and say "okay guys, on 1 March 2017 we're
all just going to drop IPv4 entirely, you have until then to get ready"

Yes, there will be casualties.

~~~
tedunangst
They should start by deciding when we're really out of IPv4. We exhausted IPv4
in 2011. And 2012. And 2013. And 2014. Every time somebody says "but this time
we're _really_ serious."

~~~
ay
There are multiple RIRs who exhausted in various times.

RIPE already ran on the "1024 addresses for every new member and that's it"
soft-landing policy for the past couple of years.

But ARIN does not have a nice policy like RIPE does, so it will be a bit more
entertaining this time.

~~~
tedunangst
None of which makes me care. From the beginning, the relevant question has
been, when will I be unable to get an IP? And every time the answer is "real
soon now". Yet the price of an extra IP on linode (for one example) has not
budged from $1/month. You'll understand if this doesn't inspire much concern.

For the record, I make the same complaint every time. Always the same
response. "Those were warning signs, but now the end is nigh!"

~~~
zaroth
When you think of the size of the IPv4 space, you realize that $1/mo for an IP
is by far the most profitable add-on they sell.

4.3 billion IPs x $12 per year = $51 billion. If the average cost to actually
hold an IPv4 address was even $0.10/month, we would not be talking about IPv4
exhaustion.

My point is, as long as you're willing to spend $12/year just for the IP
address, there will be a long line of people happy to sell one to you. But $1
per month for a routable address is at least two orders of magnitude more
expensive than network architects are aiming for.

~~~
ay
Exactly. And as the home speeds reach 1Gbps to the home, there will not be
enough CGN boxes that will be able to sustain that load, so one of the two
options:

1) more stateless mechanisms will be used (lw4o6, MAP) - which do not give the
entire IPv4 address to residential users => so even if the service has an IPv4
address, the clients might have to go through the hurdles to get to it.

Service providers are planning to go IPv6-only, and content providers already
note that IPv6 gives a double-digit performance increase compared to IPv4 [1]

2) The residential ISPs will debundle the IPv4 from the cost - given that a
lot of the sites average consumer needs (google, facebook, youtube, netflix)
are already IPv6-enabled. For this case, you will not be even able to see that
something is "wrong". Just the users will click on the link, see it's not
reachable, say "huh?" and move on.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s)
\- 1h12 well spent.

------
shmerl
IPv6 adoption is surprisingly slow. Shouldn't it happen faster?

~~~
api
Few of the big cloud providers -- EC2, Azure, etc. -- support IPv6. That's the
big bottleneck.

Fundamentally I think IPv6 itself is fine, but the transition was utterly
botched. They should have unshelved 240.0.0.0/4 and mapped IPv6 onto it,
allowing IPv4 applications to access select "early adopter" regions of IPv6.
That would have been a start.

~~~
betaby
IPv4 to IPv6 mapping exists for a long time
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4)

~~~
ay
No, no no no. 6to4 as a mechanism is the worst mistreatment you can do to your
users because of the way it works with asymmetric traffic paths traversing the
gateways you can not control.

I think what you meant to post was this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64)

~~~
api
Neither of these are actually usable in the real world.

~~~
ay
re. 6to4: agreed, and never will, see
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526)

re NAT64: not so agreed...

1\. T-Mobile USA: they have few millions of IPv6-only subscribers using
464XLAT which has NAT64 as a component.

2\. Starting from iOS9, every app submitted to App Store will have to work
with IPv6 or across the NAT64 as a criterion for appstore submission:

[http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2015/06/apple-...](http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2015/06/apple-
will-require-ipv6-support-for-all-ios-9-apps/)

3\. my own anecdata from the IPv6-only default WiFi SSID at FOSDEM conference
in Brussels this year is that ~40% of the total devices were able to use
IPv6-only SSID behind NAT64 - up from about 15-20% last year. Will be
interesting to see the numbers for the next year - with Android 5.0 shipping
RDNSS and Apple's move with iOS, this number should go up noticeably.

------
sliken
Seems like IoT would have much more to offer with IPv6. Currently you buy a
"internet enabled" schlage deadbolt for your front door and it connects to
cloud to enable remote lock/unlock. If you could count on a visible IP address
products/services could skip such things.

Again it's a chicken and egg problem, nobody does anything cool assuming IPv6
because few have it. Few have it, because you can't do anything cool with it.

~~~
steckerbrett
World accessible devices is a pretty scary concept. If you have your garage
door controlled by an ESP8266 it would take a single host to denial of service
attack it, maybe even just one server to denial of service attack every garage
door in the united states.

~~~
koffiezet
It's not because it's public addressable that it would be public accessible.

------
mmaunder
I feel lucky to have our little /27 colo block.

We added IPv6 support to our firewall product earlier this year and it was a
big deal - lots of schema and code changes to deal with 128 bit wide addresses
and address math. I'd encourage any devs working on new products to bake it in
from v1 if you can.

~~~
gonzo
We put IPv6 in pfSense years ago.

Definitely worth all the work.

------
qnaal
HP doesn't need both those Class A blocks

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Say everyone who doesn't "need" a LEGACY /8, by your estimation, gives them
back. Then what do we do when _those_ are gone?

Seriously, should we be bolting aftermarket mods on our Datsun to get it
another fifty miles or should we just buy a new bus already and get it
overwith? Yeah, not everyone fits in the new bus, and that's the problem, but
we've been in this dire boat for a long time.

I've seen firsthand how Apple uses 17/8\. Asking Apple to renumber that is
completely futile. You might as well deploy IPv7, for as much effort it will
take. Better to just advance the state of the art instead of squeezing another
few days out of IPv4.

~~~
virtuallynathan
Apple is starting to use those for "real" purposes now with their CDN,
iMessages, iCloud, etc...

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Apple has used them for "real" purposes since the dawn of the very first
Internet services offered by the company. It's not recent.

------
FrankenPC
What happens to the private sector end nodes? Do routers perform NAT from IPV4
to IPV6?

~~~
turnip1979
No .. You'd think this was worked out before ipv6 was finalized. Nat64 and
other related tech is a mess.

~~~
koffiezet
> NAT and other related tech is a mess.

FTFY

