Comments on: IPV4 Crisis – TRAI asks DoT to start working on IPV6

By: Harun Shaikh

Harun Shaikh — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:35:23 +0000

I think this issue is overrated as IPv4 supports 4 billion IP addresses and there are 6.5 billion people on earth, therefore its unlikely that every person on earth will ever have a computer and internet connection for next couple of decades in future.

We can assume one IP for each home and a few for each company as they can use proxy to connect to the internet hiding the multiple computer behind. This will still not exhaust the all the addresses.

but the implementation should not be delayed as there could be a next internet boom with a revolutionizing tech that uses lot of IP’s

thanks,
Harun

By: Mani

Mani — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:27:53 +0000

I want a detailed explanation about ipv6 protocol and its functions and when it is to be implemented in India.

By: Devdas

Devdas — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:06:51 +0000

There’s a business case for IPv6. The problem is that it isn’t a compelling business case until you actually run out of v4 space. At which point you cut over or die.

By: Raseel

Raseel — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:46:23 +0000

Agreed.
My point is, as long as there is no BUSINESS case for it, it will be difficult to convince vendors to support it.

By: Nilesh Trivedi

Nilesh Trivedi — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:42:24 +0000

I did say that NAT was a practical, low-cost, but temporary, fix. My point is that we are underestimating the cost of breaking end-to-end connectivity by delaying the move to IPv6 – which, I repeat, is an expensive solution but comes with long-term benefits.

By: Raseel

Raseel — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:32:25 +0000

NAT was not a design flaw as is seems to be the tone in your quoted article.
NAT was a solution.
More often than not, it is desirable to have mutiple machines securely communicating from behind the gateway.

For SIP apps like Skype, etc. there is a concept called STUN.

Agreed other apps like VPN, etc. would have beenmuch more easier to deploy and access, but then again Firewall security was the trade-off, so… oh well, let it be.

By: The Case For IPv6 -- Nilesh Trivedi

The Case For IPv6 -- Nilesh Trivedi — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:25:54 +0000

[...] had a post about IPv4 crisis. The questions was whether IPv4 issue is overrated. Here are my thoughts on the [...]

By: Nilesh Trivedi

Nilesh Trivedi — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:16:56 +0000

Ashish,

The real issue here is not exhaustion of IP addresses but that workarounds for address limit actually add more complexity to the network. Machines behind NAT do not have end-to-end connectivity and some Internet protocols cannot be supported. For eg. running Skype behind a NAT was (is?) a big mess.

This impact is often underestimated but end-to-end connectivity is one of the core principles of Internet. And NAT violates that. Here is an example: http://www.fourmilab.ch/speakfree/unix/

I will quote:

“A user behind a NAT box is no longer a peer to other sites on the Internet. Since the user no longer has an externally visible Internet Protocol (IP) address (fixed or variable), there is no way (in the general case–there may be “workarounds” for specific NAT boxes, but they’re basically exploiting bugs which will probably eventually be fixed) for sites to open connections or address packets to his machine. The user is demoted to acting exclusively as a client. While the user can contact and freely exchange packets with sites not behind NAT boxes, he cannot be reached by connections which originate at other sites. In economic terms, the NATted user has become a consumer of services provided by a higher-ranking class of sites, producers or publishers, not subject to NAT. ”

In short, using workarounds like NAT is delaying the deployment of IPv6. But networks are actually better off without NAT. A perfect case of a temporary practical, low-cost fix blocking the shift to a better but expensive solution.

In my opinion, this is a serious issue. We are breaking the Internet by delaying the move to IPv6.

cheers
nilesh

By: Raseel

Raseel — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:59:46 +0000

I have been hearing that the IPv4 address space is going to be completely utilized since the past 6 years. A colleague mentions 10.

I work in a Embedded Linux Networking company and am fully aware of the limitations of the IPv4 addresses and the features of IPv6. But still, I don’t know whether a strong a business case exists for IPv6. I think we easily have another few years before we start to panic.

Having said that, it’s always good to be prepared and the international bodies should concentrate on standardizing the protocols , standards, etc. so that the transition is less chaotic.