Internet addresses to be used up in January: expert

Dec 05, 2010
The reserve of available Internet addresses will be used up around the world in January 2011, experts have warned.

The reserve of available Internet addresses will be used up around the world in January, warned experts based here.

Internet addresses are distributed by the , which provides them to five regional organizations around the world.

"The pool of central addresses will be used up in January," said Ernesto Majo, communications director for the Registry of Internet addresses for Latin America and the Caribbean, a Montevideo-based non-profit organization.

"This week four blocks of Internet addresses have been used up," Majo told AFP Friday. "We are left with only five, and it has been decided that they will be distributed to each of the regional Internet registries."

But Majo said the situation was "not serious" because a new Internet protocol will allow the production of billions more Internet addresses.

The currently used Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) manages about four billion addresses and has reached its limit, experts said.

But an alternative protocol -- IPv6 -- will allow to register and service billions new addresses.

Explore further: Twitter takes note of other apps on smartphones

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Internet addresses to accept Chinese script

Jun 25, 2010

(AP) -- Chinese speakers will soon be able to tap out Internet addresses in their own language after the agency that runs Internet addresses says it will start accepting Chinese script for domain names.

Web boss sees risk of multiple internets

Jan 28, 2010

Clandestine efforts by some countries to create alternative versions of the Internet for political ends could put the Web at risk, the man responsible for organizing the network told AFP Wednesday.

Internet set for change with non-English addresses

Oct 26, 2009

(AP) -- The Internet is set to undergo one of the biggest changes in its four-decade history with the expected approval this week of international domain names - or addresses - that can be written in languages ...

Making sure the internet delivers

Jul 04, 2008

European researchers have developed affordable test suites that businesses can use to check whether their software will work with the next-generation internet.

Recommended for you

UN moves to strengthen digital privacy (Update)

Nov 25, 2014

The United Nations on Tuesday adopted a resolution on protecting digital privacy that for the first time urged governments to offer redress to citizens targeted by mass surveillance.

Spotify turns up volume as losses fall

Nov 25, 2014

The world's biggest music streaming service, Spotify, announced Tuesday its revenue grew by 74 percent in 2013 while net losses shrank by one third, in a year of spectacular expansion.

Virtual money and user's identity

Nov 25, 2014

Bitcoin is the new money: minted and exchanged on the Internet. Faster and cheaper than a bank, the service is attracting attention from all over the world. But a big question remains: are the transactions ...

User comments : 18

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

h0dges
5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2010
Actually IPv6 will allow to register and service hundreds of undecillions of new addresses.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2010
Billions more addresses does not exactly make me feel confident about not running out even after we get them. At the rate we're going, what happens when these iPV6 ones run out? ipV9? 10? Why can't we switch to some kind of 128, 256, or 1024-bit based adress numbering scheme? Or do we already?
stealthc
2.4 / 5 (10) Dec 05, 2010
we don't need ipv6, ipv4 is working just fine. They are only pushing for unique ipv6 addresses so that the internet ceases being somewhat anonymous. Unique addresses for all, and no more unlocked wifi routers (like those found in coffee shops). The groups that worked on ipv6 were being influenced by operatives in the us government manipulating certain features of the protocol to make their government off switch and tracking capabilities easily done.
Zenmaster
3.5 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
Technically, they're not "used up" they're assigned. Most are probably unused. If large blocks of ipv6 addresses are allotted, they will be "used up" quickly as well.
@MorituriMax - the larger the address, the larger the IP packet. So more bits would be required to process and to transfer IP packets (more work for processors and longer transfer times of payload).
eachus
5 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2010
Billions more addresses does not exactly make me feel confident about not running out even after we get them. At the rate we're going, what happens when these iPV6 ones run out? ipV9? 10? Why can't we switch to some kind of 128, 256, or 1024-bit based adress numbering scheme? Or do we already?


IPv4 has addresses of the form xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx where each of the four octets has a number from 0 to 127, allowing 4 billion addresses more or less. IPv6 addresses consist of eight 16-bit fields usually written as four hexadecimal digits, with colons in between, and leading zero fields suppressed. So there are (16^4)^8 = 2^256 potential IPv6 addresses.

Oh, and Comcast currently supports IPv6 addressing with alternate DNS servers, which I use. So IPv6 is not just the future, it is already happening. Unfortunately, not all ISPs are as ready as Comcast, so IPv4 addresses still matter.
MorituriMax
1.5 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2010
Thanks Zenmaster, hmm, IS there a danger that we run out of assignable ip addresses? If yes, what is a viable solution without making ip packets unwieldy to the point of unusability?
CreepyD
5 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
We wont run out of IPv6 addresses any time soon, I'm sure I remember hearing that you could assign an IPv6 address to every grain of sand on earth and still not run out.
dtxx
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
Technically, they're not "used up" they're assigned. Most are probably unused. If large blocks of ipv6 addresses are allotted, they will be "used up" quickly as well.
@MorituriMax - the larger the address, the larger the IP packet. So more bits would be required to process and to transfer IP packets (more work for processors and longer transfer times of payload).


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None of that is correct.
p1mrx
5 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2010
we don't need ipv6, ipv4 is working just fine.

It's working mostly fine for now, but we aren't out of IP addresses yet. When we do run out next year, the Internet will lose its ability to grow efficiently.

They are only pushing for unique ipv6 addresses so that the internet ceases being somewhat anonymous.

Your IPv4 or IPv6 address describes your location in the network, so that you can receive packets. If you move to a different network, your address changes. There is a privacy concern with embedding MAC addresses, but RFC3041 solves that.

Unique addresses for all, and no more unlocked wifi routers (like those found in coffee shops). The groups that worked on ipv6 were being influenced by operatives in the us government manipulating certain features of the protocol to make their government off switch and tracking capabilities easily done.

None of that makes any sense. IPv6 is fundamentally just IPv4 with longer addresses.
trekgeek1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2010


IPv4 has addresses of the form xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx where each of the four octets has a number from 0 to 127, allowing 4 billion addresses more or less. IPv6 addresses consist of eight 16-bit fields usually written as four hexadecimal digits, with colons in between, and leading zero fields suppressed. So there are (16^4)^8 = 2^256 potential IPv6 addresses.

Oh, and Comcast currently supports IPv6 addressing with alternate DNS servers, which I use. So IPv6 is not just the future, it is already happening. Unfortunately, not all ISPs are as ready as Comcast, so IPv4 addresses still matter.


I get 2^128 addresses. I think one of us made a mistake. 8 fields x 16 bits is 128 bits. Or, log2((16^4)^8)=128. Apologies if I'm mistaken.
p1mrx
not rated yet Dec 05, 2010
An IPv6 address is 128 bits, thus there are 2^128 addresses.

But that number is pretty much meaningless, since every user gets between 2^64 and 2^80 addresses. In practice, IPv6 allows for about 64K times as many users, but each user has a lot more freedom/flexibility.
Kedas
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
I did some calculation in the past and if I remember correctly then with IPv6 we can assign about 10 unique numbers to each molecule of all humans alive.

I think we are safe :-)
Dan_K
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
IPV6 is 128 bits

128 bits is 2^128 which is ~3.4 * 10^38.

Thats a lot of addresses. MAC addresses built into ethernet cards are only 64 bits... doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. The extra 64 bits is a lot of extra overhead, especially considering ATM systems that only transmit 256 byte packets to begin with.

Dan K
Mike_Beck
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
56,713,727,820,156,410,577,229,101,238

IP's PER PERSON (based on a population of 6 billion).

The idea is future-proofing. We thought 4 billion would be enough until we noticed ISP's were getting large blocks and refusing to share (so they're assigned, but unused) AND all our phones, computers, TVs and everything else are getting connected. IPv4 simply doesn't have enough for each person to get ONE address, much less several.

I'll be very amused to see how we manage to run out now. And I've no doubts that we will.
Mike_Beck
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
Technically, they're not "used up" they're assigned. Most are probably unused. If large blocks of ipv6 addresses are allotted, they will be "used up" quickly as well.
@MorituriMax - the larger the address, the larger the IP packet. So more bits would be required to process and to transfer IP packets (more work for processors and longer transfer times of payload).


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None of that is correct.


It's all correct to a certain degree of "correct".

They ARE all assigned, but they're not all used; dunno about "most are unused".

If they get handed out as stocking stuffers, they'll eventually all get assigned as well. Quickly, though?

The larger the address SPACE, the larger the packet. IPv6 moved a lot of stuff out of the header (into "extensions") so it's only about twice as big. But more data is more data; it takes longer to transmit and process.
Eri
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
What about NAT? We used to have many machines behind a single Internet facing IP

Just a thought.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2010
I'll be very amused to see how we manage to run out now. And I've no doubts that we will.


Nanotechnology.

Every computer or cell phone, every manufacturing device, every robot or nano-robot will eventually be on the internet within a few decades.

===

Larger packets isn't too big of a hinderance because computer processor speed is likely to go up significantly. Some of the technology in development right now suggest processor speeds of 100ghz in just a few years, and we'll have 8 or 16 cores at that speed.

We also have next generation transmission lines which will eventually allow Gigabytes or even terabytes per second.

Doubling or even quadrupling packet size won't really even matter.
dtxx
3 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2010
Thats a lot of addresses. MAC addresses built into ethernet cards are only 64 bits... doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. The extra 64 bits is a lot of extra overhead, especially considering ATM systems that only transmit 256 byte packets to begin with.


Don't work in IT much, do you? MAC address are 48 bits. WWIDs are 64. Also, ATM has been on it's way out for a LONG time. Ever hear of MPLS?

The original ATM frame length was shortened to please france, who desired to be able to make voip calls inside their own country without needing echo cancellation.

Also, you don't seem to know the difference between a frame and a pakcet.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.