We are not running out of IP numbers. -Right?

[Geek-9pm]

As of October 2010 predictions of exhaustion date of the unallocated IANA pool seem to converge to between January 2011 and January 2012. After the IANA pool exhaustion, each RIR will be able to supply from their last assigned addresses for another 8 months after IANA exhaustion, when at least one of the RIRs is expected to be depleted. At this point hosts will appear on the Internet that are only addressable by IPv6.

No. Not true.

[Salmon Trout]

No. Not true.

Evidence (not opinion) please.

[Geek-9pm]

No, you produce the evidence.
This system is working NOW!
Prove that it will fail before the fact!
You can't.
The system does not depend of the size of the IP.
Come racial interests are promoting the hysterical myth that we need more addresses space.
It it was a fact, telecoms  engineers would not argue about nit.
It is not about what we need. It is about what they want.

Here is a video in favor of ip6. Note that the deployment is not simple
http://www.informit.com/podcasts/episode.aspx?e=841A4201-8E6A-4798-AA83-F7A8C555AB5E

Also Note that the moderator ask s him "Why?"
Listen carefully to the answer.

[Salmon Trout]

That video is on a subscription-only site. Note for other readers... The issue of ipv4 address exhaustion has been a well-known reality for a number of years. I am not sure why Geek-9pm is posting this stuff. I fear it is a little eccentric.

[Geek-9pm]

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (September 2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address

[Salmon Trout]

So Geek is sidestepping the challenge to provide evidence for the assertions that HE initially made, and has linked to an article that actually casts doubt on what he asserts...

IPv4 address exhaustion

The IP version 4 address space is rapidly nearing exhaustion of available and assignable address blocks. As of October 2010 predictions of an exhaustion date for the unallocated IANA pool converge to the middle of 2011

This is what I said about 6 posts ago. This is what the experts say. But Geek with his SpeakWriter knows better... Or is he recanting? Hard to tell exactly what he means sometimes.

[Geek-9pm]

My point is the sky is not falling.

Read the whole thing again. The article also explains :
1.)  How the present system does keep on working. That is a fact.
2.) Why the  system is considered to be poor in scalability. That is an evaluation.

As I said said, this is not about we we need, its about what they want.

I never said the four byte space would never be filled.
I said it is not an issue.
To say  "We are running out of  (blank)" denotes a crisis, promoting hysteria.
To say  "There is no more (blank)" states  a fact.

My point is  a near full IP map  is not something to use as a political hot potato.

Now  if Crisco whats to give  everybody a free replacement -
 for all their old routers that are stuck on IP4!
Hey, Intel did that when the found the Pentium -
could not do double precision division correctly.
But if not -
Cisco  and others would benefit at our expense.
It is what they want, not what we need.

My cable provider wants to control every TV set I own.   -- I don't need that.
My Telephone carrier wants my family to have 7 cells phones.  -- I don't need that
The Utility companies want IP address for

• my electric Wat meter,
• my water meter,
• natural gas meter, 
• lock on my front gate and
• two for the garbage can. (one for the lid, one for the can.)

-- I don't need that!

The alternative is to ask everybody not to wast IP assignments . Way is that so hard?
Or does your garbage can need two IP address?

[Salmon Trout]

Or does your garbage can need two IP address?

We don't have "garbage cans" where I live; we use rubbish bins.

You come over like one of those American libertarian types. Is that an accurate assessment?

[Geek-9pm]

Like:
Bill Bixby,
Clint Eastwood,
Barry Goldwater?

No, I am note like them.

[patio]

You have IP addys for your garbage cans ? ?

[Geek-9pm]

You have IP addys for your garbage cans ? ?

Not if I can stop it!
Would you want your cans on Face-book?   

[BC_Programmer]

The Utility companies want IP address for

• my electric Wat meter,
• my water meter,
• natural gas meter, 
• lock on my front gate and
• two for the garbage can. (one for the lid, one for the can.)

-- I don't need that!

um.... where are you getting that idea from?

The alternative is to ask everybody not to wast IP assignments . Way is that so hard?

nobody can unintentionally "waste" IP assignments; if your household has two IPs, it means you are paying for them both (why you would need two I cannot guess). the extra devices, including Dustbins/Rubbish bins/garbage cans/garbage "holders"/whatever, would use IPs, but only on the local network.

Basically, while it didn't seem like it in my posts, I don't necessarily disagree that we are running out of space, I disagree with the reasons given (that "everybody" has ipods and other networked devices that "take up IP addresses" since that's obvious bunk.

[michaewlewis]

As far as the assumption that all ISP would have to replace their hardware to migrate to IPv6, that is really just nonsense and a lack of knowledge of IPv6. Cisco, and I would assume many other router vendors, has been including support for IPv6 in even their simple managed switches (not to mention, actual routers) for at least ten years. If memory serves correctly, I believe even Windows 98 had IPv6 drivers available (maybe even built in). It's very hard for me to believe that even third world countries would not have IPv6 capabilities.

Geek-9pm, I would be interested to know what your definition of upper and lower level protocols are and how they would solve this issue. IP is a lower level protocol itself (network layer in OSI model) and internet/network authorities have already addressed why NAT is not the solution (If I can find the link again, I'll post it).

Out of curiosity, can anyone positively verify that phones don't grab public ip addresses when they connect to the internet via their cell provider? BTW, private IP ranges are always 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, or 192.168.0.0/16. If your phone does not have an address in those ranges, it is using a public ip address. It seems like there are all sorts of differing opinions on whether cell phones have ip addresses and since I don't have a web capable phone, I can't check for myself.

[BC_Programmer]

BTW, private IP ranges are always 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, or 192.168.0.0/16.

No they aren't. Private IPs can use any subnet mask. That's sort of why that's an option in the Router config, so you can change it.

[michaewlewis]

Okay. Let me rephrase that. "Legal/authorized" private IPs are in those IP ranges. Of course you can change you own private ip range to whatever you want. You can even change your own router's internal ip address to be the same as Google's, but no one in their right mind would do that. Same goes for cell carriers and ISPs. They will only use "private" ip addresses in those ranges.