250 million-plus unused IPv4 addresses should be left alone, argues network boffin
- Reference: 1726468334
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/09/16/240_4_ipv4_block_unnecessary/
- Source link:
Huston shared that opinion in a [1]post detailing experiments to reach the 240/4 block – the range of IP addresses from 240.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.254.
As The Register [2]reported last February, early in the history of the internet the 240/4 block was reserved for future use. While Linux can happily handle that zone as a source of or destination for traffic, most networking equipment deliberately doesn't recognize its existence – and those boxes can't easily be upgraded.
[3]
But with IPv4 addresses running out, various efforts have sought to make the 240/4 block available to the public.
[4]
[5]
Huston's post details a recent effort to understand whether internet infrastructure could use the 240/4 block if it were made available.
Long story short: no. Isolated and small pockets of internet infrastructure can do the job, but Huston and his collaborators found the block is reachable from just 0.0452 percent of the internet.
[6]
In conversation with The Register , Huston argued that any effort to make the block available would be futile.
"Two thirds of the internet is not on IPv6 and is thriving on network address translation (NAT)," he argued.
"The open wound of the internet is that we rely on really cheap customer premises equipment in consumer land," he added – and few of those devices are ready to work with the 240/4 block. But because those devices nearly always use NAT – and that tech clearly works at the scale of today's internet – there's no incentive to replace them. Any effort to do so would mean consumers need new routers/modems, which would cost them money without improving their online experience.
[7]
Huston doubts an incentive could be found, as the price of IPv4 addresses has stabilized – a market signal that the 240/4 block's resources are not in demand. Service providers therefore likely won't push for a change of status.
[8]Proof-of-concept code released for zero-click critical IPv6 Windows hole
[9]It's 2024 and we're just getting round to stopping browsers insecurely accessing 0.0.0.0
[10]China pushes for network upgrade blitz as IPv6 adoption slows
[11]IPv4 address rentals to mint millions of dollars for AWS
Huston also expressed concern that freeing the block for public use would mean myriad new routes become available – meaning roughly 7,000 network operators around the world would get the job of assessing their safety. Again, he feels there is little incentive to do so, given the internet and IPv4 numberspace as currently constituted work well, and that IPv6 is a more-than-adequate replacement for those who can't rely on IPv4. Huston pointed to India's widespread adoption of IPv6 – after the nation missed out on an IPv4 allocation commensurate to its population – as an example of a scenario in which NAT just can't do the job, and IPv6 is therefore necessary.
Huston therefore argues that for many network operators and nations, moving from IPv4 to IPv6 is also not necessary. Extensive use of IPv4 NAT, he argues, will allow connection of as many devices as is possible if each were given a unique IPv6 address.
And the 240/4 block can therefore remain untouched and unloved, without that status hurting anyone. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://blog.apnic.net/2024/09/10/looking-for-240-4-addresses/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZugBxNubJUqCgznUuse0-wAAAco&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZugBxNubJUqCgznUuse0-wAAAco&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZugBxNubJUqCgznUuse0-wAAAco&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZugBxNubJUqCgznUuse0-wAAAco&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZugBxNubJUqCgznUuse0-wAAAco&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/28/proofofconcept_code_released_for_zeroclick/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/09/0000_day_bug/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/10/china_ipv6_update/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/05/aws_ipv4_cash/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Well...
Problem 4: if connecting out from an IPv6 only location, various parts of the internet, e.g. TrueNAS repositories are bloody unreachable, making updates an absolute PITA.
Ubuntu and others also very unstable, must of the time.
Trying to build a gateway via a UK ISP with only IPv4 and an HE tunnel has not been successful, despite many profanities uttered.
Some of my cloud system manufacturers have said they also don't have IPv6 compatibility on the roadmap yet.
It's almost like people aren't that interested in getting IPv6 rolled out...
Re: Well...
"Trying to build a gateway via a UK ISP with only IPv4 and an HE tunnel has not been successful, despite many profanities uttered."
I have had no issues with my zen + HE tunnel setup.
Note: setup.
In day to day use however, lots of places seem to block HE IPv6 ranges. I have to turn off v6 on my laptop when I want to get to admin.microsoft.com, etc...
Re: Well...
"I have had no issues with my zen + HE tunnel setup."
HE on Plusnet is up OK, but setting up a tuinnel from the other end (in the Caribbean), less so. Bit of a learning curve on that part, and needs a run-up each time I get a chance to look at it.
I do get random wanings from Google my connection now looks suspicious for some reason, but nothing I can seem to influence.
Re: Well...
> I have had no issues with my zen + HE tunnel setup...
> In day to day use however, lots of places seem to block HE IPv6 ranges.
I used the same approach (using Zen and Virgin for IPv4 connectivity), and yes, some things work fine. Reading around, it doesn't seem to be that sites are blocking HE, but there are peering issues that HE seem to be on the wrong side of. Until that nonsense is sorted, using IPv6 is a bad joke.
Edited to add:
Zen seem to provide some level of IPv6 capability on the Fritz Box router they supply, but I couldn't get it to work at all. Virgin seem to have absolutely no interest in IPv6, and are still delivering their cable TV over proprietary co-ax, not IP (I know this because they foisted their STB on me to get a decent discount on the broadband. Since I way paying for it, I hooked it up (via the ethernet port) and it seemed to be going ok with the menus etc. but as soon as I tried to watch any content it errored out because the co-ax wasn't connected. Unfortunately the Virgin termination point is in the server room, and the big TV isn't, so their fancy STB went back in its box.)
Re: Well...
For Zen you need to have it specifically enabled on your account: https://www.zen.co.uk/help-support/does-zen-provide-ipv6-support
Re: Well...
Problem 3: Practically no consumer ISPs (in the UK at least) support IPv6 properly (i.e. give you a /48 global prefix)
Depends what you mean by 'properly'. BT assigns IPv6 addresses, and so far I've had no problems with reachability. If you're after IPv6 PI addresses, that's a different problem, and one of those policy issues. IPv6 PI wasn't encouraged, along with other normal activities like multi-homing and v6 NAT. For most consumers (ie residential), it just works.
The rest is mostly just politics, ie allocating 240/4 should mostly be a software update and change to bogons filters, but it isn't being done because of pressure to force migration to IPv6.
Re: Well...
Problem 3: Practically no consumer ISPs (in the UK at least) support IPv6 properly (i.e. give you a /48 global prefix)
Sky are the second largest UK ISP and provide IPv6. (Plus all the boutique ISPs such as Zen, A&A, etc)
Re: Well...
I have had IPv6 from A&A for several years and I run a dual stack network with both Linux and Windows machines with no problem. A&A provide a 6-to-4 gateway/DNS service so in principle I could go v6 only. However I have devices that are v4 only on the network so it's easier to keep v4 going. One arcane issue I had was with my VPN tunnel back to the home network. That is currently v4 only but when I visited my daughter recently the tunnel wouldn't work on her network. She had recently changed ISP to a fibre provider that was dual stack, so my phone acquired a v6 address on that network. The browser on the phone then picked up the v6 address of the server on my network it wanted to connect to, but it wouldn't route over the v4-only tunnel! Happily, merely adding the v6 address range of my internal network to WireGuard's AllowedIPs list on the phone solved that one.
Really?
> Any effort to [migrate] would mean consumers need new routers/modems, which would cost them money without improving their online experience.
which of course applies to v6 as well.
as it did to NAT.
So if we could replace our kit for NAT back in the day, why not again for v6 or 240/4 as well?
In fact, why not use the 240/4 range as Part 1 of a 2-part address, so the endpoint can relieve their gateway of doing the NAT for them?
Okay okay, I'll get my coat...
Re: Really?
Silly me. NAT was a gateway transition, not an endpoint transition.
"Extensive use of IPv4 NAT"
It works.
And the more IPv6 was foisted upon us, the more we realized how simple (and therefor robust) IPv4 really was.
The academics can bang their IPv6 drum all they want, the rest of us just want to get doing what we need (or want) to do. And, if the IPv4 boot still fits, why change ?
I am adamant about one thing : I do not want to become a full-fledged administrator just to have my home PC, a few laptops and several mobile phones connected to my Orange box and, therefor, to the Internet. With IPv4, it's a breeze. With all I read about IPv6, it would be a nuisance. And I will do well without having to explain to my wife that her normal web sites don't all work today because somebody did something to the IPv6 connection. No thank you.
So I don't want IPv6. Not before you pry my IPv4 NAT out of my cold, dead hands . . .
Elephant
The number of IP4 that USA Universities, older companies and USA Gov had allocated from the start. Maybe millions of times more than they need.
Well...
> Tests show it's just too hard to put the unused 240/4 block to work
Probably easier than deploying IPv6
> Two thirds of the internet is not on IPv6 and is thriving on network address translation
Exactly.
IPv6 reminds me of OSI networking, as beloved by mainframes of a certain flavour. Designed by committee, and including all sorts of clever stuff to satisfy everyone. Unfortunately they both ended up being too hard to implement, and as a result, the simplicity of IPv4 still rules the internet.
(Yes, I've deployed IPv6, and until recently had a fully IPv6 enabled network - DNS, email, web, etc. Unfortunately the problems it causes (several*) seem to exceed the benefits it gives (none), so I'm now removing all IPv6 capability - I just don't need it.
* For starters:
Problem 1: The IPv6 internet seems to be fragmented - not all addresses are always reachable from all providers due to commercial politics.
Problem 2: If I change provider, I have to change addresses on everything. Yes, I could use IPv6 NAT, but that was strongly discouraged by the IPv6 cult and only got included (late in the day) because it's necessary in the real world.
Problem 3: Practically no consumer ISPs (in the UK at least) support IPv6 properly (i.e. give you a /48 global prefix)