No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean

http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac

by galapago • 12 years ago

85 43 12 years ago

lacnic.net

jre• 12 years ago

google cache : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

Sharphunter• 12 years ago

well, this is bad news

IgorPartola5• 12 years ago

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

rational-future• 12 years ago

"the worse the better"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Chernyshevsky

mhurron• 12 years ago

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.

Globz• 12 years ago

Time for IPv6 baby.

rhoml• 12 years ago

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

jodrellblank• 12 years ago

I have an IPv6 enabled home internet connection, and can connect to IPv6 enabled websites with it, and there's no 6-to-4 conversion or having an OS level tunnel to Hurricane Electric.

syncsynchalt• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

ISPs could start putting users behind a giant NAT.

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

LeoPanthera2• 12 years ago

Most cellular providers do this already.

alex_duf• 12 years ago

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

darrelld• 12 years ago

Excuse me if I'm being dense, but why does every internet enabled device need a unique IP? I thought the service providers had unique IPs and we just made our requests through them.

LeoPanthera2• 12 years ago

You don't need a unique IP, your ISP can use NAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

This is where many people can share one IP. But NAT has problems - you can make connections, but you can't accept connections from elsewhere. And it sometimes breaks particular applications.

The only real solution is widespread IPv6 adoption, which seems depressingly unlikely right now.

chrisBob2• 12 years ago

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?

zokier4• 12 years ago

Well they give you another figure for scale:

Since it began operating in 2002, the organization has assigned more than 182 million IPv4 addresses throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

182 million addresses in 12 years is roughly 15 million addresses per year, or 1.25 million addresses per month. At that rate 4 million addresses would last maybe 3 months.

chrisBob2• 12 years ago

Yes, but they could have issued 30m each to 5 different ISPs that are only half way through their allotment. If I want a fixed IP at my house or my school I don't get it from the internet address registry, I get it from Boston University or RCN.

mindslight2• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

shmerl3• 12 years ago

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

colanderman• 12 years ago

Which ISPs? Most of the large ones already support it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment#United_States

shmerl3• 12 years ago

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.

sadris• 12 years ago

Cox has said they're doing trials for 3 years now.

smutticus• 12 years ago

More and more networks are moving to IPv6. These are just a few case studies from different kinds of networks. http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/ipv6/case-studies/

The largest ISP in the USA, Comcast, has had IPv6 for a couple years now.

Or T-Mobile, which recently deployed 464XLAT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl-hIyZSAmA

shmerl3• 12 years ago

I hope that will speed up. In my area there are no landline ISPs with IPv6 support.

Nimi• 12 years ago

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.

No more IPv4 addresses in Latin America and the Caribbean

Related Stories