| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 115857 | 2011-02-06 22:17:00 | The Internet running out of IP addresses | HAL9000 (12736) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1175769 | 2011-02-07 02:18:00 | No, that's only if I use the 192.168.*.* range, and so does my ISP. If I use 10.0.0.0 with a subnet of 255.0.0.0 then yeah, again, I rule that possibility out. What ISP's could do is use the US Military range, they've got some public IP's that they use for internal-only stuff that nobody (Certainly not us) ever uses. So I still stand by the prospect that it's theoretically possible, if not really practicle. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1175770 | 2011-02-07 03:49:00 | IPs starting with 10.x.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x and 192.168.x.x are private addresses and cannot be used on the internet.They aren't publicly routable on the internet, but they can quite happily be used behind NAT devices as part of an edge infrastructure on an internet-connected network, such as an ISP. Obviously this has some known downsides - i.e. routing conflicts with customers' own private networks - which is why, when implementing this kind of infrastructure, less-common address ranges are chosen. There will always be a few customers who lose out and have to renumber their networks to maintain compatibility, but provided a suitable range is chosen they're generally rare. There isn't really a 'common' range.Of course there are common ranges! Some of the most common are: 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.1.0/24 10.0.0.0/24 10.1.1.0/24 Obviously there are a few router models which do something stupid and use something like 10.0.0.0/8 by default, and some customers will assign various other ranges for their own purposes, but the ones listed above are by far the most common. If an ISP chooses to use something like 10.152.89.128/25 for NAT customers, then realistically they are going to have *very* few customers who will have issues with that range. Additionally, most users likely to assign such a range to their own network will usually be either corporate customers or very tech-savvy consumers, who will generally understand how to configure their equipment to avoid this being an issue. ISPs don't pick their IPs; they are allocated to them by the IANA. From those, they give them out to their customers.This is only the case for globally routable, public addresses. Private addresses can be used by anyone, for any purpose, but can't be globally routed. Private addresses are designated as such by IANA, and anyone wishing to make use of them does not need to apply to IANA or any other body in order to do so. ...no, for the reasons i mentioned. Basically you wouldn't be able to communicate with anyone else that had a private IP.You don't seem to quite understand the way IP routing works. Assigning private IPs to customers behind a NAT router does *not* prevent those customers from communicating with other private IPs, however they choose to do this, unless there is a routing conflict on the customer's gateway - which, if the ISP chooses a sensible range, is extremely rare. If an ISP decides to use 10.123.234.0/24 as a NAT range behind a public IP, then customers of that ISP who are given addresses from this range and who are also using 10.123.234.0/24 on another interface of their gateway router will be unable to reach either the segment of their network using this range, or the rest of the internet, depending on how the router is configured. Everyone else will be able to connect outgoing on all NAT-able protocols with no difficulty, but will not be able to receive directly incoming connections. Can you imagine the support calls, when people ask their ISP why they cannot skype to their relative (or any other p2p application).Many P2P applications are smart enough to get around NAT by dynamically mapping where they can, and where they can't, by making outgoing connections to those who can receive them, or by soliciting incoming connections via a third party (this only works for UDP). Obviously support is an issue, particularly regarding the inability to easily accept incoming connections, and is one of the reasons for pushing IPv6. What ISP's could do is use the US Military range, they've got some public IP's that they use for internal-only stuff that nobody (Certainly not us) ever uses.Too dangerous unfortunately; unlike the designated private address ranges, most routers will consider that to be a valid public range, and will quite happily propagate BGP advertisements for it. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1175771 | 2011-02-07 07:50:00 | Obviously there are a few router models which do something stupid and use something like 10.0.0.0/8 by default bleepin' Dlinks! |
ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 1175772 | 2011-02-07 07:58:00 | Yep pretty much it's just the %@#$ D-Links .... | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1175773 | 2011-02-10 05:52:00 | Erayd, wow that's certainly a damn fine response to my speculation. From what you are saying it is technically possible, although there would be some cost involved for the ISP. I did not really mean this to be a solution to the problem, but rather a measure that could be taken to push back the eventual running out of addresses. |
HAL9000 (12736) | ||
| 1175774 | 2011-02-10 06:10:00 | Then of course there are the ones no one will ever get. The military and Government allocated (www.uaff.info). |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1175775 | 2011-02-10 18:41:00 | If you want to know IP address information service that [edited] will give you this service information | Mainkerchipa (16220) | ||
| 1175776 | 2011-02-10 20:58:00 | Piss off you stupid spammer! | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||