Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
nanog at jima.tk
Thu Jan 27 23:27:52 CST 2011
On 1/27/2011 6:24 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
>> 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.
Actually, Fox News got the article -- glaring technical inaccuracies
and all -- from www.news.com.au:
Of course, you won't find (most of) the inaccuracies there now; they
edited the article after the fact (and after Fox copied them). The only
proof I had for myself reading it later were my logged peanut-gallery
comments in #ipv6:
14:03 < jima> "Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem
by creating IPv6 - a system which recognises six-digit IP addresses."
14:04 < jima> web developers? *wince* six-digit IP addresses? *cringe*
14:05 < jima> i'm gonna give mr. hutson a piece of my mind! ...if i
could figure out who he is. :-\
After the edit, I did snark via Twitter, "Media Trolling 101: 1. Write
#IPv6 story w/ glaring tech. inaccuracies. 2. Get story picked up by
FoxNews. 3. Fix inaccuracies. 4. Laugh." (
So, yes, while this was an example of news coverage gone terribly
wrong, we can't blame Fox alone. (There is, however, such a thing as
"fact-checking," but that's a secondary point.)
More information about the NANOG