OMG! The drivel starts!



"That distribution system is coming to a close"
What? no? IPv4 is not closing. The distribution system is fine. It is the allocation system that is running out.

"Every internet connected computer, smartphone, car, gadget and gizmo is assigned a four-digit IP address which allows it to communicate with the net..."
Err, no. It is IPv4 because it is version 4, not because it uses 4 digits. It uses 32 bits, which in decimal notation might be 12 digits with some dots. Not 4 digits!

"Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 - a system which recognises six-digit IP addresses."
OMG! It is "Web developers" that have created IPv6 is it, wow... And six digit IP addresses? WTF?!?!?

“But IPv6 is not backwards compatible. If I changed my mobile phone to run IPv6 rather than IPv4, then all of a sudden I wouldn’t be able to see the IPv4 network – none of it. Nobody. Nothing. We’re not going to do that."
Err, WTF would you stop using IPv4. Look, idiot, your mobile almost certainly does IPv6 already. Mine does on the WiFi and will on the mobile network just as soon as the network gets its act together. You don't turn off IPv4!!!

"Though web developers and ISPS have known about this problem for years there aren’t presently any acceptable solutions."
Err, so what's IPv6 then? Seems like a perfectly acceptable solution to me.

"Time is running out, and developers are no closer to fixing the problem, things are looking grim."
Err, it was fixed back in 1995.

“The issue now is if IPv6 isn’t a workable solution and v4 has run out, you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.”
Err, works for me!

"A short-term solution may be for ISPs may be able to sell IP addresses that connect through what’s known as “Network Address Translation” – which allows more than one user to connect to a public IP address. But like trying to use a mobile phone on New Year’s Eve this presents its own problems - because it slows down the connection speed, or could potentially make it unusable."
OK, now I am lost. Sell IPs that connect through NAT? And why does NAT slow things down? I suppose maybe if CGNAT boxes are over loaded, but NAT does not solve the other end - more web sites and so on not having IPv4 addresses.

With this level of technical journalism is there any hope that anyone will get the right message?

P.S. news.com.au article has been updated to remove a couple of the stupid comments following my blog post. The fox news one still has them.


  1. He's .au cobber

    Never let the facts spoil a good story blue.

    Remember, they start drinking tinnies at breakfast.

  2. Alas, the UK press are worse, and will probably copy and paste the .au story without any fact checking.

  3. I find the lack of understanding of IP addresses amusing CSI IP address Fail

  4. Don't know what's worse that the author clearly didn't have a clue or that they didn't even bother to run it past someone who actually knows WTF they're talking about before publishing.

  5. I showed it to SWMBO (who is not a technical bunny by any chalk) and her only question was "was it written by the celebrity gossip reporter?"

  6. "Mr Huston gave an address regarding the IP problem at open source conference linux.conf.au in Brisbane yesterday."

    We'd better get those addresses whilst we still can...


  7. Yes, fox news have re-published word for word. OMG!

  8. These 'news' sources apply the same level of accuracy and detail seen here to most of their stories. It's not just their tech reporting that leaves much to be desired.

  9. Craig (re: CSI IP address fail). Reminds me a bit of this XKCD IRC chat log: http://www.xkcdb.com/?602

  10. re: the CSI thing - it's a bit of an extreme example but you'll see that virtually any time you see an address on screen it's invalid, for the same reason that all phone numbers start 555 (in the US; Ofcom has a surprisingly wide range of 'fiction' numbers available...)


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

ISO8601 is wasted

Why did we even bother? Why create ISO8601? A new API, new this year, as an industry standard, has JSON fields like this "nextAccessTim...