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

[Geek-9pm]

That you for your responses
Apparently many think this issue is a hard nut to crack. No easy solution.
Here is just one of many IT advertisements:

Start planning for IPv6 today!

The transition from an existing IPv4 network to IPv6 requires careful planning and design. A plethora of transition strategies has been defined within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to facilitate co-existence and migration to IPv6. But which approach is best?

Download our free IPv6 Address Management Guide, which includes:

    * NEW! IPv4-to-IPv6 Transition Strategies white paper - provides an introduction to the variety of IPv4-IPv6 transition technologies and provides sample migration scenarios.
    * IPv6 Addressing and Management Challenges white paper - provides an overview of IPAM-related IPv6 technologies, challenges and solutions
    * Best Practices for IP Address Management white paper - recommends best practices for next-generation IP management

-- The BT Diamond IP Team
http://btdiamondip.com/software/offers/ipv6.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=IPv6&keyword=IPv4&ad=6123439987&type=Search&site=&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&keyword=IPv4&ad=6123439987&type=Search&site=&gclid=CPLJy9n4kaUCFQlubAodzQECPA

As for my option, I have lived in developing countries. I have seen that any change is hard for them to handle.  My opinion is that a quick transition to IPv6 will hinder their progress. And and would like to be wrong.

Yes, some parts of the third world and going ahead with the deployment IPv6.
Mostly Asia.

[patio]

The problem with a lot of your research projects is you ony subscribe to whatever you read from whatever source...
Then it's posted here and you are not objective to the replies that are garnered...
Then it turns into a 4 page Post arguing semantics...and frequently going awry.

Just a personal observation...

[BC_Programmer]

I have lived in developing countries. I have seen that any change is hard for them to handle. 

This is such a ridiculous argument.

Basically, you're saying we should slow down so they can keep up with the more developed countries. That's a load of tosh. The developing countries have more important things to worry about then what IP version they will be using for their network backbones- and in almost all cases those are at least related to why they are developing countries in the first place. You're entire reasoning is basically that "developing countries will have trouble keeping up with the changes" As if it's some huge revelation. They also have trouble with civil war, disease, proper sanitation, and any number of things (although that depends on which "developing" country we're talking about). It's stupid to artificially hinder the advancement of new technologies simply as some sort of artificial handicap so that developing nations will be able to keep up. They can integrate the technology when they please, there isn't going to be some huge complete switchover from ipv4 to ipv6, when IPv4 no longer has any to allocate, then new allocations will be made with IPv6, without a correspondent IPv4 address. Yes, those new IPs will be pretty much inaccessible unless there is a network backbone that supports IPv6, but I highly doubt that the main concern of those in developing countries is wether they will be able to visit websites.

The problem with a lot of your research projects is you ony subscribe to whatever you read from whatever source...

Yep, quite a lot of Ad Hoc hypotheses, reverse ad populum, Apophenia, and arguments to ignorance. That's not to mention confirmation bias.

[p1mrx]

IPv6 is not some money-grab from the corporations trying to keep the people down, actually it's quite the opposite.  The networking companies would like nothing better than to sell lots of carrier-grade NAT boxes to deal with the IPv4 address space crunch.  The media companies would love to have every user behind NAT, because it kills P2P file sharing and restricts content hosting to those with the means to procure public IPs.  An IPv4-only Internet will inevitably evolve into a client/server crap heap, where the users can run a web browser, and not much else.

There's nothing magic about IPv6; it's fundamentally just IPv4 with 96 extra bits.  The IPv4 crunch gives ISPs a completely-legitimate reason to restrict your freedom, and IPv6 deployment is a clear way around that.  Arguing against it is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Even if you don't care about upgrading your own IPv4-only equipment anytime soon, you should still want your ISP to be ready, so that when you find that you need a public IP (or a few billion billion of them), you'll have options available.

And places like Africa will arguably benefit the most from IPv6, because they have so few IPv4 addresses to work with, and their network deployment is just getting started.

[BC_Programmer]

An IPv4-only Internet will inevitably evolve into a client/server crap heap, where the users can run a web browser, and not much else.

Which works out great, because a vast majority of users run a web browser and not much else.

[zeroburn]

Hey, As long as we use a system of numbering, and have to put a degree of uniformality to it, like only having 10 didgets in a phone number, the posible combonations of phone numberes run out.

If you just tack on a 3 didget code in front of it, like they did with phone numbers, it should last us another while longer. Am i right people??

[Salmon Trout]

Hey, As long as we use a system of numbering, and have to put a degree of uniformality to it, like only having 10 didgets in a phone number, the posible combonations of phone numberes run out.

If you just tack on a 3 didget code in front of it, like they did with phone numbers, it should last us another while longer. Am i right people??

zeroburn, you sure are reviving some old threads!

[Geek-9pm]

Old thread? Yes. Do the majority or even a large number of visitors understand what this is about? The internet is working. It is not going to come to a halt.
 The problem is economic forces that want to alter the technology to advance new products. That is a nice way to say "fear and greed" are pushing the change.
Until people understand that, the purpose of the thread has not been realized. I have tried to explain this and we get responses from  posters that believe we have to believe whatever the big commercial interests say.

The fact is, thee are enough IP address available to let every man woman and child on this planet to have there own computer and be on the internet ALL at the same time.
Does anybody want to know  why? Every time we start to talk about this,  some body says "But IPv4 only has 32 bits." That does not matter. The internet URL resolution is not limited by limitations of a 32 bit address to function.
How can I make this simple? We don't have to have IPv6. Many interests want IPv6. Why? because they don't like IPv4.

BTW. Insiders call the preset system IP5. That is not official. But it conveys the idea that the system is not IPv4 limited.

[Salmon Trout]

The fact is, thee are enough IP address available to let every man woman and child on this planet to have there own computer and be on the internet ALL at the same time.

But that isn't enough! Firstly the world's population is increasing, secondly, the importance of data connectivity is growing at a dizzying rate. It's not just every man woman and child having a "computer", it's their car, tv, radio, phone, fridge, heating boiler, alarm clock, electricity and gas and water meters, the house itself will need a lot for all the doors and windows and heating system, and also everything like that at work or school and every part of every office, hospital, bus, train, plane, ship, whatever. It's going to grow amazingly. Look how we kept running out of phone numbers as telephones, faxes, modems etc got more widespread in the 20th Century. The digital future is going to be much more massively widespread and ubiquitous. Even I can see this, and I am an old fogey.

[patio]

The problem is economic forces that want to alter the technology to advance new products. That is a nice way to say "fear and greed" are pushing the change.

Exactly what economic forces stand to profit from this ? ?

[Geek-9pm]

Thank you for your responses,  Patio and Salmon Trout.
Here are some additional remarks about the new Internet protocol that is commonly called IPv6.
One of my contentions is that the chief beneficiary of the new protocol will be large information technology companies that wish to introduce new technologies and attract new customers. Making money is not bad, per se, but if it is done at the expense of existing customers it is a matter of concern.
In any discussion of this topic it comes down to "more bits is better". The problem is administration and design. Not how many bits you put in a low level protocol. If you waste 32 bits, you can waste 128 as well.
Is there really an need to go further  into this?  Who is ready for higher prices for the same service? Earlier I said the refuse company wants to put two IPs on my garbage can. One for the can, the other for the lid. That was meant to be a Joke.  But IPv6 is the real joke. But I am not laughing. I will have to pay more for something I don't need. I know where my garbage can is at all times. Don't you?

[mroilfield]

One of my contentions is that the chief beneficiary of the new protocol will be large information technology companies that wish to introduce new technologies and attract new customers. Making money is not bad, per se, but if it is done at the expense of existing customers it is a matter of concern.

You really have no clue do you?

The chief beneficiary of just about every single new advance in just about anything is the companies that spend the money on research and development. If they didn't think they could make money off of it they wouldn't spend the money to figure out how to make it or make it better. Sure the consumers usually gain some benefit from it but believe me most companies don't do this stuff with just the customer in mind.

[Geek-9pm]

You really have no clue do you?

The chief beneficiary of just about every single new advance in just about anything is the companies that spend the money on research and development. If they didn't think they could make money off of it they wouldn't spend the money to figure out how to make it or make it better. Sure the consumers usually gain some benefit from it but believe me most companies don't do this stuff with just the customer in mind.

Is it just too naive to hope that new advances will come without making us dependent servants of some great new thing? Do we need to watch the new season of Hawaii 50 on an i Phone or an Android? While driving in out car that uses a GPS to  keep us from sealing into the guard rail?

[mroilfield]

Is it just too naive to hope that new advances will come without making us dependent servants of some great new thing?

We are the ones that make our selves dependent on these new advances. No body makes you run out and buy the latest and greatest thing on the market. There are plenty of people in the world that manage to get up every morning and live a happy life with out even the basic need of electricity so if you find yourself dependent on some gadget or another (this excludes medical devices) then don't blame the companies that make them. You should be blaming yourself.

I congratulate all the people that can develop a product and then convince the masses that they can't live with out said product. With out these type people we would all still be living in caves as hunter gatherers.

[BC_Programmer]

Is it just too naive to hope that new advances will come without making us dependent servants of some great new thing? Do we need to watch the new season of Hawaii 50 on an i Phone or an Android? While driving in out car that uses a GPS to  keep us from sealing into the guard rail?

Several things:

1. New advances are our servants, not the other way around. If the people don't want something, or don't need something, then nobody makes it. That's why you don't find any combination bathtubs/toasters.

2. Hawaii 5-0 was cancelled over 20 years ago. Sure you can pretend the new one is the same show but it's not, that's why any and all "remakes" of old shows fail.

3. Not sure what the iPhone has to do with any of this. Nor what googles OS has to do with it either. (although knowing you you're probably talking about robotic androids).

4. If the car had a GPS that prevented you from hitting the guard rail, what is the purpose of the guard rail? Why not have this GPS prevent you from going off a sheer rock cliff, and save the money on the  guardrail. On fact, if the GPS is doing that, then you aren't driving the car to begin with, are you?

I congratulate all the people that can develop a product and then convince the masses that they can't live with out said product. With out these type people we would all still be living in caves as hunter gatherers.

heh... you made me imagine a cave to cave salesman trying to sell the wheel...