

No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean - galapago
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac

======
jre
google cache :
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-
hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac&strip=1)

------
chrisBob
I don't have a good feel for the numbers involved here. Things like this
always report: "We are out!... only 4,000,000 or so addressed remaining!" Four
million sounds like a lot to me. Some number of the IP addresses that are
counted as gone are also still unused.

Can someone give me some idea of the situation with numbers that are easier to
understand? Can we still limp through for a few years, or is this actually the
crisis point?

~~~
mindslight
It does seem a bit anti-climactic. "We're out! We only have a /10 remaining,
and we'll only be handing out /24 - /22 allocations!". Which does seem an
awful lot like "flowing freely" (I'd be happy with just a personal /27 myself)
until you put it in context with those early non-aggregable /24 allocations in
192/8 being generally viewed as a mistake for router memory, and the
subsequent move to only give out portable allocations to larger service
providers.

IMHO all of the IPv4 exhaustion articles are basically scaremongering
attempting drive adoption ahead of the real pressing need. Which isn't the
worst goal, as it encourages people to become familiar (have YOU setup a
tunnel from he.net, sixxs, or with 6to4/miredo and started playing around?).
But I suspect we'll be hearing variations on the same "we're out! (but not
really out)" story for the next 5 years at least.

But besides a larger address space, v6 doesn't really give new features
(besides plausible deniability of what constitutes a host address) and just
adds to packet overhead. So the only compelling reason will be the ever
growing number of endpoints that are v6 only, and behind NAT (from businesses
who decide that providing v4 addresses to new customers by default is too
expensive). Other businesses wanting to better serve/track those customers
(avoiding NAT64 etc) will then finally have a real reason to treat IPv6 as a
first class concern.

~~~
icedchai
I set up a HE.net v6 tunnel over 4 years ago now. Sometimes, I ask myself why
I bothered.

~~~
mindslight
Experience and familiarity, mainly. When Linode enabled native v6, setting it
up was a no-brainer. I'd also be comfortable getting a v6-only server if it
fit my need.

Also it's a nice backup link for NATted WAN machines in case tinc/autossh/etc
accidentally goes down.

------
Nimi
I wonder what will happen when the pool nears exhaustion globally, not just in
Latin America and the Caribbean. A few scenarios come to mind, would love to
hear more scenarios/insights:

1\. The governments of the world push IPv6 legislation. Everyone invests the
resources needed to migrate in a few years, overall everyone's pretty OK with
this.

2\. Carrier-grade NAT becomes much more widespread. People who need a public
IP (mostly p2p users, I guess) pay more for that. Again, overall everyone's
pretty happy.

3\. Gradual, failover-friendly solutions are deployed. The network becomes
fragmented, this plays out like IE6. After a few years, most of the people who
matter get tired of this, pull support for IPv4.

------
Globz
Time for IPv6 baby.

~~~
rhoml
We won't see IPV6 for the next 10 years or so.

~~~
syncsynchalt
The US is at 8% IPv6, I think that's enough of a base of early adopters that I
could believe as soon as there was some actual pain involved with v4 we'd see
some fast changeover.

In other words, I believe the limiting factor on v6 adoption is no longer
technical or interop, instead it's lack of problems with v4.

------
bobwise
What are the practical consumer-level implications of this? My understanding
is that every internet-enabled device needs a unique IP address. If there are
no more unique addresses, can no more devices connect to the internet in this
region?

~~~
boobsbr
ISPs could start putting users behind a giant NAT.

One cable company used to do it in Brazil back in the 2000's

~~~
alex_duf
That's bad practice and complexifies a lot the creation of peer-to-peer
infrastructures.

~~~
estebank
That might be a feature in the media provider's eyes.

------
shmerl
In US many ISPs are too lazy to move to IPv6.

~~~
colanderman
Which ISPs? Most of the large ones already support it:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#United_States)

~~~
shmerl
Verizon and Optimum for example don't have IPv6 support so far.

Note that your link says something about trials / tests and so on. Many did
that, yes, but not all of them actually deployed IPv6 in result.

------
Sharphunter
well, this is bad news

~~~
IgorPartola
This is great news. This means IPv6 there is that much closer to being a
reality.

~~~
mhurron
Carrier-Grade NAT [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-
grade_NAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT)

As in what is (unfortunately) actually being used. ISP's have taken so long to
even begin to look at moving to IPv6 that stopgaps like CGN have to be put in
place. Then, of course, why break what is working so IPv6 is put off even
further.

~~~
api
Reminds me of fossil fuels and other sustainability issues...

~~~
IgorPartola
That's actually exactly what this is. Currently coal is the cheapest
electricity you can get. However, as the price of coal, oil, and natural gas
goes up, and as the price of cleaner alternatives (through research, scale,
etc.) goes down, we will eventually arrive at using much cleaner energy. The
big problem with this is that those two prices aren't moving fast enough to
avoid a global climate disaster we will be facing within several decades.

