Discussion Forums > Technology
Running out of IPV4 Adresses
boxer4:
Dynamic or static IP doesn't matter at all for p2p, as long as someone has static to get the initial table of dynamic people available (i.e., the tracker).
And yes IPV6 does have throttling and packet QoS which ISP companies can decide to downgrade p2p priority. But so what, as long as the packets get through... (Honestly p2p traffic should take low priority, they just should never be filtered.)
My point is that sticking to ipv4, if ISP companies decide to put everyone behind NAT and nobody gets an "external" IP (imagine being behind a firewall but it's not YOUR firewall) -- that you *can't* open ports up because it's no longer controlled by you -- then P2P will no longer work. You can still websurf, etc. just fine as your IP is NATted. But enough people get this service, then P2P will break.
I'm already seeing this on my cellular 3G service. The IP address I get on my phone is not routeable, if I bittorrent from it, I can only send chunks to others if I local connect to their machine... but if the requester machine is behind the same type of setup, they also can't listen to a port and the chunk will never get through. Despite maintaining an IP address when switching towers, it's only used internal to the phone company, and I get a different IP when connecting outside of the phone company...
K7IA:
--- Quote from: Pentium100 on October 25, 2010, 06:32:16 AM ---Well, making the IP address fixed to the person or the device across ISPs would make the routing tables huge. Also, unless you are changing ISPs in the middle of a connection it is no problem. If I connect with my cell phone to the internet, the IP stays the same when I move from tower to tower. Making the IP stay constant between ISPs would require cooperation from all ISPs and those who run the hotspots. It also would allow spoofing.
--- End quote ---
You are correct, but 3G/4G is an encapsulation layer provided by our cell phone operators.
I believe 802.11xx is the future of mobile connectivity. - I am just guessing -
Making IP stay constant in either IPv4 or IPv6 is not feasible (cross ISP data interconnect and all) though it could work like roaming. That is why I said IPv6 is not designed for mobile era.
--- Quote from: boxer4 on October 25, 2010, 07:19:01 AM ---My point is that sticking to ipv4, if ISP companies decide to put everyone behind NAT and nobody gets an "external" IP (imagine being behind a firewall but it's not YOUR firewall) -- that you *can't* open ports up because it's no longer controlled by you -- then P2P will no longer work. You can still websurf, etc. just fine as your IP is NATted. But enough people get this service, then P2P will break.
--- End quote ---
That would practically be the end of internet as we know it. The problem is "they could in fact do it" if they wanted to :D
Sosseres:
--- Quote from: boxer4 on October 25, 2010, 07:19:01 AM ---My point is that sticking to ipv4, if ISP companies decide to put everyone behind NAT and nobody gets an "external" IP (imagine being behind a firewall but it's not YOUR firewall) -- that you *can't* open ports up because it's no longer controlled by you -- then P2P will no longer work. You can still websurf, etc. just fine as your IP is NATted. But enough people get this service, then P2P will break.
--- End quote ---
That would break the P2P for a large portion of the users, killing torrents and similar solutions that rely on massive amounts of users. This would not stop direct downloads, it would most likely not block FTP, it wouldn't block proxy/vpn solutions...
boxer4:
--- Quote from: Sosseres on October 26, 2010, 02:00:42 PM ---That would break the P2P for a large portion of the users, killing torrents and similar solutions that rely on massive amounts of users. This would not stop direct downloads, it would most likely not block FTP, it wouldn't block proxy/vpn solutions...
--- End quote ---
I would venture it would stop direct ftp too, because it's no longer private (only those who can afford a real ip could do it)... and who could run a proxy/vpn? Once again just those few... And with a proxy/vpn the benefits of p2p is lost...all traffic is centralized at the vpn server...
I'd rather ipv6 than this situation...let anyone serve anything they want instead of only the few...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version