Author Archives: IP Trading

First Internet message anniversary

The article linked above caused me to reflect on my memorable first Internet experience. It is growing increasingly harder to convey the eeriness of the feelings I had upon my first contact with the Internet. In today’s connected world it is hard to remember the earlier “disconnected world.” In 1978 I was a junior in high school on Long Island and got my first introduction to computers in a brand-new class called BASIC programming. (Well, I had completed a course in keypunch operation, so maybe that was my first computer experience.)

Chicken Little and IPv4

The author of the article linked above, without mentioning NAT at all, comes to an important conclusion about IPv4 scarcity. He senses that there is a distinction between the absolute number of devices connected to the Internet and the number of devices which require a dedicated public IPv4 address. He senses that the historical predilection towards the assignment of a public IPv4 address to every connected device is profligate, and that there exists a huge pool of allocated, but not utilized IPv4 address space. Now we do know that Cisco

Another carrier announcing CGN

A new wireless carrier in London, Relish,  has announced the deployment of a 4G LTE network. This network is running Carrier Grade NAT to get around problems of IPv4 scarcity. The company announced that they had completed rigorous testing of their CGN implementation and its effect on a range of applications, including online gaming, with no issues to report.  Although readers of this blog will not be suprised at this, there are still efforts to demonize CGN through overblown fears of broken applications among those IPv6 advocates who understand the

Telco revenue streams drying up, Internet of things not the answer

In this article about market saturation, declining voice revenues, and negligible prospects for the telco industry, left unasked is where the money for IPv6 transition will come from? Are telcos intent on simply slowing their slide into irrelevance so as to maximize profits on the glide path? In this current milieu, are telcos going to undertake new investment with no tangible reward, or are they likely to leverage their dominance in IPv4 address space to slow the decline?  We know that many equipment replacement cycles have elapsed since IPv6 was finalized

IPv4 Network Surprisingly Robust?

“But a surprising thing happened: because of workarounds that allow many devices to share one address, IPv4 is still used, even though the number of devices now vastly outnumbers the number of available addresses. Most sites and network operators aren’t even using IPv6 yet. That’s why it was so easy to fix BGP routers: all it took was telling them to set aside less memory for data that follows IPv6 and make more room for data based on IPv4.” This is a quote from the article linked above, written in

IPv4 Global route table crosses 512k threshould

On August 12th, Internet outages occurred as a result of a burst of temporary growth in the IPv4 routing table. This resulted in some routers crossing the important 512K mark, as many older routers are limited to routing tables smaller than this, and fail when the table grows too large. The addition of about 15,000 new IPv4 routes by Verizon to the roughly 500,000 current entries had the effect of clearly demonstrating the 512K effect.  Those routes were later removed, but IPv4 routing table growth is inexorable, and will permanently reach 512K shortly.

More thoughts on the future of this market

We are often asked about the future of the IPv4 market and I will take some time now to discuss that. APNIC and RIPE have virtually exhausted their free pools and have severely limited new allocations. As of this writing, ARIN has about .95 of a /8 left, or about 15 million addresses.  On June 10th, 2014, LACNIC, the registry for the South American and Caribbean regions, announced that they have reached exhaust. The next big exhaustion event will be the ARIN exhaust, which should happen in less than a

Ruminations on the failure of IPV6 transition

A dual-stack transition model was decided upon by the IETF as the appropriate one to use in the transition from IPV4 to IPV6.  This was not unreasonable. Since the benefits of NAT (Network Address Translation) started to become apparent around that same time period, the late 1990s, actual IPV4 exhaustion was not expected for nearly 15 years. And since the plan was to build into the dual-stack transition model a preference for IPV6, it was envisaged that normal equipment replacement cycles would lead to a dual-stack Internet long before exhaust,

An enlightening exercise in demonstrating IPv6’s immaturity

This article describes how enabling IPv6 in a dual stack environment led to a frustrating inability to send mail through a Microsoft Exchange Server. The troubleshooting of the problem moves through the networking layer of both IPv4 and IPv6 until the application level is reached. A diagnosis of the SMTP handshake revealed that the IPv6 address was being rejected by the Exchange server. This led to a review of the various IEEE RFC’s which applied, and a determination that Apple’s mail program did not comply with the current standards. The fact that

New Mobile Networks continue to be deployed using IPv4

This link describes the deployment of a new Sprint LTE mobile network as being done using Carrier Grade Nat with internal ip addresses which have been allocated the the US Department of Defense.  Because the DoD network’s ip network is not connected to the public Internet, ip address conflicts will not occur.   This is of interest to us because it indicates clearly that the CGN model works and is actively being deployed by carriers even in advance of IPv4 runout. Whereas it has been a commonplace observation that the expanding universe of mobile