«

They’re disappearing at the rate of about one /8 block a month. And there’s
not much more than a dozen left
<http://www.zdnet.com/news/ipv4-addresses-hitting-critical-stage-5-percent-remain/475865>.

2010-10-19 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>:
> They???re disappearing at the rate of about one /8 block a month. And
> there???s
> not much more than a dozen left
> <http://www.zdnet.com/news/ipv4-addre...al-stage-5-per
> cent-remain/475865>.

Lots of them are left, just release them.

What’s likely to happen, as people get more worried about them running low,
is they start to run out faster
<http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/10/well-of-remaining-ipv4-address-blocks-quickly-running-dry.ars>.

On Oct 19, 11:08*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> What’s likely to happen, as people get more worried about them running low,
> is they start to run out faster
> <http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/10/well-of-remaining-ipv4-addres...>.

Why are 224-255 unusable? What are they otherwise 'used' for which
makes them unusable.

There are probably 'kludges' available of the type, for example, where
the London telephone system was split into two concentric zones as an
interim measure until 8 digit numbers could be introduced.

peterwn <> wrote:

> On Oct 19, 11:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> > What's likely to happen, as people get more worried about them running low,
> > is they start to run out faster
> > <http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/10/well-of-remaining-ipv4-addres...>.
>
> Why are 224-255 unusable? What are they otherwise 'used' for which
> makes them unusable.

Addresses starting with 224 through 239 are for multicasts. They can't
be reassigned because there will be existing devices that are using
addresses in those ranges for multicasts, and routers and hosts will
assume that is what they are for.

Addresses starting with 240 through 255 are "reserved for future use"
according to various networking/IP textbooks (I haven't hunted down the
RFCs), and at least 255.255.255.255 is used for local broadcast. Some
references suggest this range can be used for "research and development
purposes".

I expect a problem with reassigning 240 through 254 is that lots of
routers and hosts will not allow addresses in that range to be used,
because they are/were officially reserved.

> There are probably 'kludges' available of the type, for example, where
> the London telephone system was split into two concentric zones as an
> interim measure until 8 digit numbers could be introduced.

--
David Empson

On Oct 19, 5:10 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> They’re disappearing at the rate of about one /8 block a month. And there’s
> not much more than a dozen left
> <http://www.zdnet.com/news/ipv4-addresses-hitting-critical-stage-5-per...>.

It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

In message
<c2b8565c-dd21-4bad-a802->, Matty F
wrote:

> It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
> that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
> field larger, until the next time it overflows again.

Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
move to IPv7?

On 20/10/2010 9:45 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <c2b8565c-dd21-4bad-a802->, Matty F
> wrote:
>
>> It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
>> that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
>> field larger, until the next time it overflows again.
>
> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
> it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
> move to IPv7?

A very basic flaw in universe deign

On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <c2b8565c-dd21-4bad-a802-076add58f...@o15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Matty F
> wrote:
>
> > It's a very basic flaw in system design to have a fixed length field
> > that eventually overflows, requiring a huge amount of work to make the
> > field larger, until the next time it overflows again.
>
> Given that IPv6 has room for roughly the same number of addresses as the
> estimated number of atoms in the entire observable Universe, how soon will
> it be do you think before we have to go through the pain all over again and
> move to IPv7?
The number of atoms in the Universe seems to have shrunk by a huge
margin.
Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?

On Oct 21, 8:26*am, Matty F <mattyf9...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

>
> The number of atoms in the Universe seems to have shrunk by a huge
> margin.
> Some programmers are very wasteful of resources. Whatever is
> available, they will waste. However IPv6 should be enough.
> Why didn't they use IPv6 in the first place?
Because IPV4 would have seemed ample at the time, so much so that some
large USA companies like IBM and MS were allocated a 'A' group eg
ccc.xxx.xxx.xxx where the whole x range was allocated to them.

Similarly phone companies thought that seven digit numbers and a USA
area code system with 128 or so area codes was adequate.

In such cases there was a requirement at the time to accommodate
technological and perceived human limitations, eg phone companies
considered a seven digit number was as much as a person could handle
(especially with the traditional spin dial), and even then the first
three should be a 'letter code' (even if random letters like in
Sydney, etc). Also for example 40-50 years ago it was considered that
people would never be able to dial international calls because of
alleged complexity.