Bunch of arse
Two reasons, apart from IPv6 this doesn't matter:
1) Most IP addresses are assigned dynamically, and each ISP simply has to decrease the TTL (Time to Live) value to increase IP address coverage.
2) Most companies, and an increasing number of online services use DNS Translation, meaning that each network has another 4 billion addresses to play with.
But let's all panic, anyway :-)
(, Thu 3 Feb 2011, 12:55, Share, Reply)
I Do Hope
that you don't work in IT. I don't know how you could be any more wrong other than claiming that packets on the Internet are carried by pixies.
1) TTL applies to a TCP datagram and is measured in milliseconds. You seem to have this mixed up with DHCP leases which are measured in hours or days. Reducing this would have very little, if any, effect on the number of IP addresses used by an ISP as the vast majority of us are permanently wired to the Internet via ADSL or cable. As Soon as your lease expires you are given a new one. Virtually instantly.
2) DNS translation. Admit it. You just made that up. DNS has the square root of fuck all to do with IP address allocation. It's simply the way a human readable address, www.b3ta.com, is turned into a machine usable address 207.44.242.20. I repeat - it has bugger all to do with address allocation. I think where you're getting confused here is with NAT or network address translation. Where a router will give out the same external address to the Internet regardless of how many actual address are behind the router. Most companies already use NAT but this isn't an option with an ISP as many Internet services can't be used with NAT at the ISP level. For example, anything that uses port forwarding so very few ISPs use it.
We are running out of Ip addresses and the only thing that can mitigate this is IPv6. That's why it was invented. If your solutions were valid then we wouldn't have bothered.
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Thu 3 Feb 2011, 23:32,
Share,
Reply)