h a l f b a k e r yThe embarrassing drunkard uncle of invention.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
IPv4.5
Squeeze more life out of IPv4 | |
Problem:
1) We're quickly running out of IPv4 addresses 2) Poor
nations cannot afford many IPv4 addresses 3) ISPs are
delaying implementing IPv6 because of capital cost
Intermediate solution:
1) There's nothing wrong with IPv6, we should all be
using
it today. 2) We use IPv4 mostly for the
internet, using
only
a single TCP port, port 80. So we're wasting the full
potential of 65536 ports available. 3) Instead of giving
everyone their own IP, have an ISP account page so you
can set up port forwarding (instead of doing so on your
internet router). 4) Now we effectively have 6 tuples in
an
IPv4 address - giving us another 65K times the amount
of
addresses - enough to get by...
More detail:
Of course we still need ports to poke out to the internet.
So an ISP would have one IP for all servers and then a
small
pool of IPs for NATing out. Depending on the size of the
ISP the pool would be much smaller than a regular
subnet.
So for an ISP with 10,000 customers. Half with port
forwarding for web servers or P2P applications and the
like
you would only need 1 IP to service the 5,000 odd server
ports. Contention for an outbound port assumed at 6:1
(especially when you have multiple browser tabs open
with
AJAX) - you still only need 1 IP to service 10,000
customers! So instead of 10,000 IPs you only need to use
2.
NAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT
I've learnt something new today! [DrBob, Dec 16 2010]
[link]
|
| |
Some ISPs already use NAT (there's a whole country, I forget which one, that has only 1 ip address for most of its personal users)...its not a good thing. |
|
| |
On general principles, I'd prefer implementing a proper solution rather continual patching of a system that's reached the end of it's useful life. Fishbone from me. |
|
| |
I'm on the fence: while it might be possible that having only 4 billion addresses on the web is too little, 128-bit strikes me as being a tad overkill; I read that that's something like 2^28 addresses for each man/woman/child. Bloat begets bloat. Perhaps if they cleaned up all the dead-end and trawling sites [ ] |
|
| |