View Full Version : Report: Internet Outages Could Occur By 2010 As Capacity Stalls

CP/M User
November 24th, 2007, 11:41 PM
Booming demand for Internet services combined with insufficient infrastructure investment could leave the Web vulnerable to brown outs within three years, a study released Tuesday predicted.

Full story here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20071121/tc_cmp/204200341)

This comes as a bit of a suprise to me, I'm unsure how this works exactly and was wonderning what other people thought about this.

I'm unsure if traffic jams are responcible for this, I got the impression by reading the story there was a bit more depth to it - perhaps it's along the lines of how fast Internet has become and overloads occurring because people are uploading huge video or image files which are wasted because programs like Word Documents don't compress an image to it's actual size after it's being reduced and actually retain the original size of that image! :-x

November 25th, 2007, 06:39 AM
Don't worry. The death of the Internet has been 10 years in coming already.

This report says that bandwidth will become constrained. That is one problem.

The other problem is that IP version 4 (what everybody uses today) is running out of addresses.

The bandwidth problem happens because more people are sending more bits down the wires, and with 'unlimited access' there is no incentive to stop.

The good news is that the equipment to switch the bits around is cheaper and cheaper and there is a lot of excess capacity, so we never really hit the limit. One report said that there is an incredible amount of 'dark fiber' (unused fiber optic lines) still left laying around from the Internet bubble 7 years ago.

Wireless is also helping this problem too. It's much easier to upgrade a few wireless nodes in an area than trying to install CAT 5/6 to new rooms in a building. If you look at some of the experiments in cities where they are trying to blanket entire areas in wireless and figure out how much labor that saves on laying cable, it makes a lot of sense.

Another thing that helps the bandwidth problem is newer technology - the people who make the equipment are getting better and better at pushing more bits down the same piece of copper or fiber.

The IP version 4 address space thing is probably more of a threat. Addresses are only 32 bits and they are assigned in big blocks, so there is a lot of wasted address space. IP version 6 has been available for a few years, but nobody is using it.

The one thing that has saved the Internet (big 'I' means the public one, not the 'internet' in your house) is NAT (Network Address Translation). All of those little Linksys routers out there that hide multiple machines behind one machine cut down on the address space that the telcos and cable companies need. It's funny .. back in 2000 you were penalized for trying to have more than one address, and using a router to 'hide' machines was prohibited by a lot of service contracts. Now the cable and phone companies throw in modems that do routing too .. they figured out that people have more than 1 machine, and that hiding them all behind one address cuts down on their costs.

I'm hoping IP version 4 sticks around for at least 5 more years. My TCP/IP stack that I'm writing for the old machines is based on IP version 4, and I don't want to attempt IP version 6 .. It's possible, just harder and probably slower on the old iron.

November 25th, 2007, 07:12 AM
I have both IPv4 and IPv6 running on my internal network, and so does my ISP, but mostly IPv4 is used for the WAN. I think they put both in to prepare for the switch.

nige the hippy
November 25th, 2007, 09:06 AM
I wish that the ISPs in the uk would notice that internet infrastructure is pretty cheap, I've noticed that my internet slows down or stops at ten past eight most evenings ;)

November 25th, 2007, 09:43 AM
Did you see this video from the RIPE 55 conference?

Terry Yager
November 25th, 2007, 02:32 PM
Whatever happened to Internet2? I haven't heard anything 'bout them for a while.


November 25th, 2007, 09:21 PM
I thought IPv6 was coming out soon, and becoming a regular thing to have, I'm amazed nobody is using it yet.....

And don't worry about IPv6 as far as OLD machines go, when I used to work for Cingular, I attended a class where they taught us a bit about the new IPv6, IPv4 and IPv6 differs from Octets, six instead of four, and is backwards compatible with IPv4 to allow older devices to function according to what they taught me.

But then, haven't we been here before? I remember sometime around 1996-1997ish there was news about a shortage of IP addresses for the internet even back THEN, unless it was this being predicted, in which case, all I can say is.....well, damn the industry is lazy.

Because of this issue, I would not be surprised to see standards for starting/running an ISP business or node on the network to become more stringent in the future (to prevent using up the addresses past the demarcation point between the networks), and for houses to start coming pre-wired with their own internet connectivity jacks (aka, Ethernet) as standard equipment in the future.

However, the upgrade not having happened yet is kind of surprising, especially with more people getting connected over time.

November 25th, 2007, 10:21 PM
Whatever happened to Internet2? I haven't heard anything 'bout them for a while.



November 25th, 2007, 10:49 PM
IPv4 and IPv6 differs from Octets, six instead of four, and is backwards compatible with IPv4 to allow older devices to function according to what they taught me..
It's not just an octet change. You don't ID an address by decimal now, it's hex. And it's self configuring, as far as I know.

On my network I enabled it, and without any kind of server, they just self assigned. (like a 169 address, but actually working)

Here's my preferences panel. Notice the IPv6. It's more than 6 octets too (and it's not an octet, as it's technically not EIGHT bits each).


November 26th, 2007, 12:05 AM
IPv4: four groups of 8 bits = [2^8] ^4 = 2^32 [4.2E+9] addresses
IPv6: eight groups of 16 bits = [2^16]^8 = 2^128 [3.4E+38] addresses

The first 64 bits in IPv6 is the network prefix, and the latter 64 bits is the local part. As a reference, it has enough space to assign 6.7E+17 different addresses to each square millimeter on the planet Earth.

I wonder if it would be meaningful to assign a few thousand IPv6 numbers to a single web server, if it acts like a web hotel for many different domains. Instead of name based virtual domains, the web server could serve clients per IP request, and only in a future domain name service the lookup had to take place. I'm unsure what would be gained from this though.

November 26th, 2007, 08:16 AM
I just realized my Mac won't connect to a Windows computer via IPv6. It always gets this:

Last login: Mon Nov 26 12:06:41 on ttyp1
Welcome to Darwin!
Brandons-Mac-mini:~ Brandon$ ping6 fe80::2e0:18ff:fecb:36b2%5
ping6: UDP connect: No route to host
Brandons-Mac-mini:~ Brandon$

both computers are sitting right beside each other, on the same cisco switch.