Jul 27 2010Uh-Oh: IP Addresses To Run Out Next Year

gw-command-center.jpg

As a matter of fact yes, that is a picture of the GW command center. I can make calls, fax, print, copy, collate AND write Geekologie all from the comfort of my plush shitter. Did I mention I can relieve myself? Because I can do that too. I just have to be careful my unit isn't caught between the seat and rim because one time it was and I peed all over the floor. Don't hate the playa hate the smell! IP addresses are supposed to run out next year.

The internet protocol used by the majority of web users, IPv4, provides for about four billion IP addresses -- the unique 32-digit number used to identify each computer, website or internet-connected device.


There are currently only 232 million IP addresses left -- enough for about 340 days -- thanks to the explosion in smartphones and other web-enabled devices.

The solution to the problem is IPv6, which uses a 128-digit address. It would give everyone in the world more than four billion addresses each, but most of the internet industry has so far been reluctant to introduce it.

It would require each device that connects to the internet to be reconfigured or upgraded, with some users even being forced to buy new hardware, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Sure we could do that. Or you could take my advice and, instead of issuing more IP addresses, start issuing PO boxes. BOOM -- WHO'S THE INTERNET GENIUS NOW, MR. GORE?!

World Will Run Out of Internet Addresses in Less Than a Year, Experts Predict [foxnews]

Thanks to Charles, who doesn't care so much about IP addresses as he does physical addresses. He's a mailman!

Related Stories
Reader Comments

A HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT DIGIT ADDRESSING?!

WTF I CAN'T SUBNET ALL THAT *explodes*

It's all designed to get you off of old hardware and software which doesn't spy on you enough and into the "future".

Third?

K this is a week old. not hating, just saying.

Buy new hardware?! I can't leave my Apple Newton!

I'm not hating on GW for this, because it's a technical issue that few people understand, but this story is 100% bullshit.

Not only that, but IP addresses have been "running out next year" for at least the last 10 years.

Smartphones are sure catching on, and yes every one DOES need an IP address, but it doesn't need a UNIQUE ONE. There's a little bit of magic done on the back end called Network Address Translation (NAT, it's just just a little bug that goes right for your eyes for some reason) that lets an almost unlimited number of devices use the same IP address.

Next year will be the year for IPv6 though. that shit is real as global warming!

With all the click revenue that I send home to you, I would have thought that you would at least have a flat panel monitor.

NO ONE COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING!

I blame the bloggers for using up all the IPs! With their filthy posts and lolcats! Only government certified journalists should be allowed to write for the internet!!! Like Drudge!

And the u-tube its also eating up all the IPs faster than we can make em!! :( Ban that too! its all filthy pot-smoking pornography and cussing!!! Only professionals should be allowed to make u-tubes!

were all doomed to numbers....

here's an idea .... RECYCLE IP ADDRESSES!! yes/no?

Those fat bastards (like universities and all those places who reserved their first IP adresses, and initially got HUGE nets cause no one could imagine there to be too little IP adresses!) hoarding huge subnets just have to fork over their endless reserves of IPs, that's all... :P

IPv6 sucks balls, how am I going to remember IP adresses now :(
2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:73fssdfsdf34343 WHATEVER

I don't know shit about programming, but 128 characters per IP address sound like it would take a lot more work, and is that really worth creating such a huge number of available IP addresses..... not sure how many possibilities an 128 character IP address would make, but I'm sure it would make WAY more than will ever be needed.... think about it, the human population (and technology) expand at such an exponential rate, one or the other is gonna reach an asymptote (i.e. the human population is gonna stop growing before it ever reaches the number close to the number of possibilities that a 128 character IP address; or they're figure out a completely new system to identify addresses by some method that we can't even comprehend..... i don't know what that method is.... that would be like asking someone from the middle ages to explain the internet..... just sayin

i know what i'm tryin to say, but not sure how to say it... if you are one of the 5 people in the world who is able to follow my rambling, congratulations... or something

Aw, how am I gonna change it now?

Fox News? Really GW? I've lost so my respect....

It's not 128 characters, nor is it 128 non-binary digits. IPv6 uses 128 bits for addressing; this translates to 16 bytes of data (four times as long as your current IPv4 address). The assumption that some of you have made is that "128 digits" is "128 bytes," and this is incorrect. If you consider that 128 bytes is 1024 bits, then that means that a 1024 bit address would provide 2^1024 addresses, which is on the order of 10^308 (1 with 308 zeroes after it), and is an immense misconception (so immense that you'd be better off to to use a logarithm to verify that number).

What's the deal with the math in this article? Taking:
2^128 / [(very generous 7)*10^9] = 4.86*10^28. ~4x10^28 is significantly larger than 4x10^9.

Also, being so narrow-minded as to think that 16 characters is hard to remember, how is "100.117.109.98" any harder to remember than "YouAreAHugeIdiot" (which could be interpreted as a valid IPv6 address if you interpret it as ASCII)

thats what they say since 1998.. that the adresses will run out.... but they're not gone change to ipv6..they'll just use more NAT

@12 6 is right, there are ways of fixing this without upgrading network hardware for every computer and wireless device. However what he was talking about is still temporary I believe. Seems like at some point we'll have to do waht was suggested in the article

Well the source is from fox news and that says alot about the legitimacy of the article.

Looks like Prince was right after all.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments relevant to the post. Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are required to confirm comments but will never be displayed. To create a link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments.