"Vint Cerf, who helped create IPv4 in 1977 and one of the founding fathers of the Web, told Australia's Sydney Morning Herald that IP addresses will be used up soon, perhaps within weeks.
"I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as saying, adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists ske...@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
-----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher <h...@efes.iucc.ac.il> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:21:20 +1100 To: "na...@nanog.org" <na...@nanog.org> Subject: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
>"World to run out of IP addresses soon, Internet expert says"
>"Vint Cerf, who helped create IPv4 in 1977 and one of the founding >fathers >of the Web, told Australia's Sydney Morning Herald that IP addresses will >be used up soon, perhaps within weeks.
>"I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 >addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as >saying, >adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
> "I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 > addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as saying, > adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
Fortunately, web developers have fixed the problem according to Fox news:
"Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit ones."
It will be difficult initially, though:
"But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able to read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all users will be able to view is a blank page."
-----Original Message----- From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:h...@efes.iucc.ac.il] Sent: 27 January 2011 11:21 To: na...@nanog.org Subject: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
"World to run out of IP addresses soon, Internet expert says"
"Vint Cerf, who helped create IPv4 in 1977 and one of the founding fathers of the Web, told Australia's Sydney Morning Herald that IP addresses will be used up soon, perhaps within weeks.
"I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as saying, adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
>On 27/01/2011 11:21, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>"I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 >>addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as saying, >>adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
>Fortunately, web developers have fixed the problem according to Fox news:
>"Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 >-- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit >ones."
>It will be difficult initially, though:
>"But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able >to read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user >experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all >users will be able to view is a blank page."
>I'm glad Fox has cleared all this up for us.
I guess they are hiring TSA rejects. No other way to explain the cluelessness
> On 27/01/2011 11:21, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> "I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 >> addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as saying, >> adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
> Fortunately, web developers have fixed the problem according to Fox news:
> "Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit ones."
Consider the source... Fox -- All the news that's fit to misquote. (or something like that).
Those guys never get anything technical or political right.*
> It will be difficult initially, though:
> "But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able to read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all users will be able to view is a blank page."
> I'm glad Fox has cleared all this up for us.
ROFLMAO
Owen
*In order for Fox to sue me for libel, they first have to prove my statement is false.
>-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:49 AM >To: Nick Hilliard >Cc: na...@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
>On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 27/01/2011 11:21, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>> "I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 >>> addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as >saying, >>> adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
>> Fortunately, web developers have fixed the problem according to Fox news:
>> "Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating >IPv6 -- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit >ones."
>Consider the source... Fox -- All the news that's fit to misquote. (or something >like that).
>Those guys never get anything technical or political right.*
>> It will be difficult initially, though:
>> "But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able to >read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user >experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all users >will be able to view is a blank page."
>> I'm glad Fox has cleared all this up for us.
>ROFLMAO
>Owen
>*In order for Fox to sue me for libel, they first have to prove my statement is >false.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohn...@drtel.com> wrote: > I'm a bit torn on this issue. I haven't even heard any other "main-stream" sources say anything on this topic. But Incorrect info is bad too.
> I hope the viewers who watched this are getting the gist that "Something wicked this way comes". :)
I believe that's the only message foxnews puts out, if their viewing audience is missing that... then we all have very much larger issues :(
I really wish people would keep their personal/political bias outside the list unless it is specific and relevant. What other "main-stream" news organization has made any reports on this issue?
To be clear, FOX screwed this up big time, but that doesn't mean we all need to get out our personal/political pitchforks and run them out of town. Take your Ritalin. :)
>-----Original Message----- >From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com >[mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow >Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:05 AM >To: Brian Johnson >Cc: na...@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
>On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohn...@drtel.com> >wrote: >> I'm a bit torn on this issue. I haven't even heard any other "main-stream" >sources say anything on this topic. But Incorrect info is bad too.
>> I hope the viewers who watched this are getting the gist that "Something >wicked this way comes". :)
>I believe that's the only message foxnews puts out, if their viewing >audience is missing that... then we all have very much larger issues >:(
> I really wish people would keep their personal/political bias outside the list unless it is specific and relevant. What other "main-stream" news organization has made any reports on this issue?
As much as I agree with the comments people have made, you're right, they aren't appropriate for this forum. However, it *is* possible to cover properly:
> Bear with us while we go a little deeper into the digital landscape. We're going to talk about IPv4 exhaustion next. Don't be scared - we'll break it down. Here it goes.
> Everything that can be connected directly to the Internet - computers, cell phones, game systems, TVs, even cars - has an Internet Protocol, or IP address. IP version 4, or IPv4, has just over 4 billion unique addresses. But with so many Internet-ready devices on the market, the current supply of IP addresses will run out sometime next year.
> John Curran is going to explain what that means for Internet users. He's the president and CEO of the American Registry for Internet Numbers, and he's in the studio at member station KPBS in San Diego. Welcome to the program.
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Johnson" <bjohn...@drtel.com> > I really wish people would keep their personal/political bias outside > the list unless it is specific and relevant. What other "main-stream" > news organization has made any reports on this issue?
> To be clear, FOX screwed this up big time, but that doesn't mean we > all need to get out our personal/political pitchforks and run them out > of town. Take your Ritalin. :-)
Fox didn't screw up, for a change, and Vint's quote appears in many other news sources. Apparently, I'm the only one on Nanog who knows about this new thing called The Google. :-)
Thinking that Fox "News" is not a reputable news source is not, indeed, an opinion attributable *solely* to non-Republicans, and indeed, it's easy to prove in a documentary, non-partisan fashion.
[ Sorry; forgot to address this to the list, earlier. ]
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Johnson" <bjohn...@drtel.com> > I'm a bit torn on this issue. I haven't even heard any other > "main-stream" sources say anything on this topic. But Incorrect info > is bad too.
> I hope the viewers who watched this are getting the gist that > "Something wicked this way comes". :)
Vint was quoted as saying this some months ago, I believe in a story linked from Slashdot on a reputable news outlet.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Fox didn't screw up, for a change, and Vint's quote appears in many > other news sources. Apparently, I'm the only one on Nanog who knows > about this new thing called The Google. :-)
And this is -not- what the article said before: "Web developers have compensated for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a system which recognizes 128-bit addresses as opposed to IPv4's 32-bit addresses."
Originally (an hour ago) it read something like "Web developers have compensated for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a system which uses 6 digit addresses instead of 4 digit addresses"
"But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able to read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all users will be able to view is a blank page."
here's the original quote (which a friend had pasted to me):
"Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit ones."
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, david raistrick wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> Fox didn't screw up, for a change, and Vint's quote appears in many >> other news sources. Apparently, I'm the only one on Nanog who knows >> about this new thing called The Google. :-)
> And this is -not- what the article said before: > "Web developers have compensated for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a > system which recognizes 128-bit addresses as opposed to IPv4's 32-bit > addresses."
> Originally (an hour ago) it read something like > "Web developers have compensated for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a > system which uses 6 digit addresses instead of 4 digit addresses"
> "But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able to > read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user > experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all users > will be able to view is a blank page."
> here's the original quote (which a friend had pasted to me):
> "Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 -- a system > that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit ones."
And as replied privately to someone else earlier, that was quoted from Fox news IPv6 website, http://wwwwww.foxnews.com :-)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:06 PM > To: NANOG > Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
> > To be clear, FOX screwed this up big time, but that doesn't mean we > > all need to get out our personal/political pitchforks and run them > out > > of town. Take your Ritalin. :-)
> Fox didn't screw up, for a change, and Vint's quote appears in many > other news sources. Apparently, I'm the only one on Nanog who knows > about this new thing called The Google. :-)
> Thinking that Fox "News" is not a reputable news source is not, indeed, > an opinion attributable *solely* to non-Republicans, and indeed, it's > easy > to prove in a documentary, non-partisan fashion.
[WES] Don't kid yourself, defending a "reputable news organization" for not properly checking their facts on a technical story before publishing is politically motivated too, especially when you try to imply that being willing to call out inaccurate (technical) info in the news is somehow related to one's political party.
They at least corrected the first one - "Editors' Note: An earlier version of this story erroneously described an IP address as consisting of four digits, rather than four sets of digits, and inaccurately described the IP address. This story has been updated to reflect the correction." But this gem still exists in the first article: "Web developers have compensated for this problem by creating IPv6". At least there's *probably* some web developers at IETF that might have had a hand in creating IPv6, so that one's not technically incorrect...
The second one from several months ago is still borked: "IPv4, ... the unique 32-digit number used to identify each computer, website or internet-connected device. ... The solution to the problem is IPv6, which uses a 128-digit address." So, first it was 32 digits, then it was 4 digits...
What I don't understand is I can only guess they must have a IT team. And Maybe even 1 or more people that view this list. Why don't they just talk to there own staff about the issues? Maybe one of the IT guess saw the issues talked about the articles and contacted the news team about the bad info. I donno. I agree they kind of did a poor job on this.
If you work at FOX maybe you should help get the news guys on the right page. :)
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:06 PM >> To: NANOG >> Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Brian Johnson" <bjohn...@drtel.com> >>> To be clear, FOX screwed this up big time, but that doesn't mean we >>> all need to get out our personal/political pitchforks and run them >> out >>> of town. Take your Ritalin. :-) >> Fox didn't screw up, for a change, and Vint's quote appears in many >> other news sources. Apparently, I'm the only one on Nanog who knows >> about this new thing called The Google. :-)
>> Thinking that Fox "News" is not a reputable news source is not, indeed, >> an opinion attributable *solely* to non-Republicans, and indeed, it's >> easy >> to prove in a documentary, non-partisan fashion.
> [WES] Don't kid yourself, defending a "reputable news organization" for not > properly checking their facts on a technical story before publishing is > politically motivated too, especially when you try to imply that being willing > to call out inaccurate (technical) info in the news is somehow related to > one's political party.
> They at least corrected the first one - "Editors' Note: An earlier version of > this story erroneously described an IP address as consisting of four digits, > rather than four sets of digits, and inaccurately described the IP address. > This story has been updated to reflect the correction." > But this gem still exists in the first article: "Web developers have > compensated for this problem by creating IPv6". At least there's *probably* > some web developers at IETF that might have had a hand in creating IPv6, so > that one's not technically incorrect...
> The second one from several months ago is still borked: > "IPv4, ... the unique 32-digit number used to identify each computer, website > or internet-connected device. ... The solution to the problem is IPv6, which > uses a 128-digit address." So, first it was 32 digits, then it was 4 digits...
> FWIW, Marketplace (on NPR) did a story the other night too. It wasn't > necessarily incorrect, but it was so dumbed down that they managed to talk > about IPv4 exhaustion without mentioning the words "IPv4" or "IPv6" > http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/01/25/pm-internet...
> The second one from several months ago is still borked: > "IPv4, ... the unique 32-digit number used to identify each computer, website > or internet-connected device. ... The solution to the problem is IPv6, which > uses a 128-digit address." So, first it was 32 digits, then it was 4 digits...
Perhaps, it would be possible to effect some - *to switch-off* their netted computers/devices for a period no less than 6 months - such that their computers/devices are able to properly adjust to changes. O:-)
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:26:58PM -0800, Mark Keymer wrote: > What I don't understand is I can only guess they must have a IT team. > And Maybe even 1 or more people that view this list. Why don't they just > talk to there own staff about the issues? Maybe one of the IT guess saw > the issues talked about the articles and contacted the news team about > the bad info. I donno. I agree they kind of did a poor job on this.
> If you work at FOX maybe you should help get the news guys on the right > page. :)
My experience working with newspaper and TV reporters leads me to believe that they can't recognize when they're on the wrong page, and will sacrifice accuracy to catchy titles and text "simplified" to the point of being ludicrously wrong -- at least when it comes to topics such as computers, networking, and spam. I certainly don't expect any better of Fox.
Remember that study on people so incompetent that they can't recognize their own incompetence? That's it, in spades.
-- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:26:58 pm Mark Keymer wrote:
> If you work at FOX maybe you should help get the news guys on the right > page. :)
Coming from broadcast engineering prior to my current IT gig, let me tell you that in most larger broadcast organizations the tech folk are rather fortunate if the talent knows who they are at all, and even more fortunate if the talent takes instruction from them; the right people to get to are the producers. Most of the time, large broadcaster talent and producers (and managers) aren't terribly receptive to corrections from technical staff.
I was in a very good situation in the stations for which I worked; but they were smaller organizations. I always felt like a valuable part of the team, and I and the talent were great friends, as they knew I cared about making them look and sound good.
In the age of conglomeration, central IT/engineering, and outsourcing, it may be that the actual production outfit for whom the talent directly works is not the same organization for whom the IT folk work, and the broadcast tech folk may work for someone entirely different. Additionally, the IT and tech staff are many of the times terribly understaffed, and may not even pay attention to the actual product going over the air, concentrating on the transmission, computer, automation, or studio operations/production systems technical operation rather than the content transmitted. Or they're fixing yet another virus infection; perhaps they might even get docked for correcting such an error with 'shouldn't you have been working instead of watching our news?'
Now, if that tech happens to be the operator on duty in master control, he or she can sometimes have QA feedback capability, but not always, and almost never directly to the talent.
So, a good case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand does.
And once it is on the air, it's very difficult to get it changed; egg in the face, you know. The fact that it was changed at all should speak volumes, IMO. Someone did catch at least part of the error, and had sufficient feedback capability to get it corrected.
I consider it to be very much part of the general attitude of news organisations towards the online content. It seems in general that very little editorial oversight takes place with online content, compared to what might appear in print. Often seems rather much like the content comes direct from the journalists, which any editor will tell you is generally a bad idea! Part of the problem has been perfectly demonstrated by this article. Having published something inaccurate and had lots of people jump on them in the comments, they've since updated and fixed the faults. Never mind that there are who knows how many people who have read it already and now have the wrong idea, as long as it's correct now, right?
> What I don't understand is I can only guess they must have a IT team. > And Maybe even 1 or more people that view this list. Why don't they just > talk to there own staff about the issues? Maybe one of the IT guess saw > the issues talked about the articles and contacted the news team about > the bad info. I donno. I agree they kind of did a poor job on this.
> If you work at FOX maybe you should help get the news guys on the right > page. :)
> Sincerely,
> Mark
> On 1/27/2011 11:51 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:06 PM >>> To: NANOG >>> Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Brian Johnson"<bjohn...@drtel.com> >>>> To be clear, FOX screwed this up big time, but that doesn't mean we >>>> all need to get out our personal/political pitchforks and run them >>> out >>>> of town. Take your Ritalin. :-) >>> Fox didn't screw up, for a change, and Vint's quote appears in many >>> other news sources. Apparently, I'm the only one on Nanog who knows >>> about this new thing called The Google. :-)
>>> Thinking that Fox "News" is not a reputable news source is not, indeed, >>> an opinion attributable *solely* to non-Republicans, and indeed, it's >>> easy >>> to prove in a documentary, non-partisan fashion.
>> [WES] Don't kid yourself, defending a "reputable news organization" for not >> properly checking their facts on a technical story before publishing is >> politically motivated too, especially when you try to imply that being willing >> to call out inaccurate (technical) info in the news is somehow related to >> one's political party.
>> They at least corrected the first one - "Editors' Note: An earlier version of >> this story erroneously described an IP address as consisting of four digits, >> rather than four sets of digits, and inaccurately described the IP address. >> This story has been updated to reflect the correction." >> But this gem still exists in the first article: "Web developers have >> compensated for this problem by creating IPv6". At least there's *probably* >> some web developers at IETF that might have had a hand in creating IPv6, so >> that one's not technically incorrect...
>> The second one from several months ago is still borked: >> "IPv4, ... the unique 32-digit number used to identify each computer, website >> or internet-connected device. ... The solution to the problem is IPv6, which >> uses a 128-digit address." So, first it was 32 digits, then it was 4 digits...
>> FWIW, Marketplace (on NPR) did a story the other night too. It wasn't >> necessarily incorrect, but it was so dumbed down that they managed to talk >> about IPv4 exhaustion without mentioning the words "IPv4" or "IPv6" >> http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/01/25/pm-internet...
> On Thursday, January 27, 2011 03:26:58 pm Mark Keymer wrote: >> If you work at FOX maybe you should help get the news guys on the right >> page. :) > Coming from broadcast engineering prior to my current IT gig, let me tell you that in most larger broadcast organizations the tech folk are rather fortunate if the talent knows who they are at all, and even more fortunate if the talent takes instruction from them; the right people to get to are the producers. Most of the time, large broadcaster talent and producers (and managers) aren't terribly receptive to corrections from technical staff.
Actually I would say they resist those corrections since they make the impetus of their fear-raising "the earth is flat commentary" what it is - something specifically to sell advertising content and to ensure they can from their perspective properly value their ad space.
> I was in a very good situation in the stations for which I worked; but they were smaller organizations. I always felt like a valuable part of the team, and I and the talent were great friends, as they knew I cared about making them look and sound good.
> In the age of conglomeration, central IT/engineering, and outsourcing, it may be that the actual production outfit for whom the talent directly works is not the same organization for whom the IT folk work, and the broadcast tech folk may work for someone entirely different. Additionally, the IT and tech staff are many of the times terribly understaffed, and may not even pay attention to the actual product going over the air, concentrating on the transmission, computer, automation, or studio operations/production systems technical operation rather than the content transmitted. Or they're fixing yet another virus infection; perhaps they might even get docked for correcting such an error with 'shouldn't you have been working instead of watching our news?'
> Now, if that tech happens to be the operator on duty in master control, he or she can sometimes have QA feedback capability, but not always, and almost never directly to the talent.
> So, a good case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand does.
The real problem is when the mind controlling the hands cannot keep the right hand and left hand synchronized on which ones responsibility rezipping the pants is...
> And once it is on the air, it's very difficult to get it changed; egg in the face, you know. The fact that it was changed at all should speak volumes, IMO. Someone did catch at least part of the error, and had sufficient feedback capability to get it corrected.
> ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3406 - Release Date: 01/27/11
