And oddly enough, this seems to be happening all over again with ipv6.

My company has a /32 ipv6 space. That's 79228162514264337593543950336 /128s. And we got it by... just asking for it.

I know everyone's shouting about "there are enough IPs for every atom on earth!" but just like "no one understood that over half of all humans would be on the internet", maybe we'll need more IPs in the future becuase of some unforeseen development... it seems silly to be handing out blocks like this just for giggles.

They thought of that; the current allocation scheme will be used for IIRC only 1/8 of the IPv6 address space. If that's ever exhausted, there's still the other 7/8 which can be allocated in a more conservative manner.

People start encoding information in IPv6 addresses because the address space is so huge. This however, could lead to address shortage.

There was an article about this recently on the German news site Heise: https://heise.de/-4196981

Translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

Yeah, we can only give out 4,294,967,295 more /32s to large companies.

So to take a known scale, there is not enough to give one to each person alive. Which might seem crazy but then again, why would everyone not only need an ipv4, but need several (phone, computers, watch, tv,...)? Crazy

That seems wasteful, but that is the equivalent to getting a single IPv4 address by asking for it, and the IPv4 shortage wasn't caused by the distribution of individual addresses. It's a world of difference to getting a /8 by asking for it.

We would still have ipv4 shortage that way though, not enough to give one to everyone, let alone the several we need. Same here, this might seem a crazy problem to worry about, but they're handing out ranges of size large enough that there isn't enough to give one to any person alive.

Apparently not for every atom. The space is small enough to save us from grey goo scenario, at least until nanobots invent NAT.

https://xkcd.com/865/

I believe it's more like every atom in the universe. Which means that inherently it is enough. But indeed it is still best to be somewhat careful.

There were always yearly fees; it's just that prior to 1995 they were paid for by the US taxpayers instead of the domain owners.

Those literally weren't fees. The dictionary definition of fee is "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services".

Hence, there were no fees. Stop engaging in pointless (and even incorrect!) sophistry.

Definition 1.1: "Money paid as part of a special transaction, for example for a privilege or for admission to something." I'd say that applies.

Those literally were indeed fees.

The National Science Foundation paid Network Solutions a payment, per registered domain, in exchange for the service of registering it.

IP-Addresses and domain-names are only tangentially related. Just because you pay a fee per domain-name does not mean it's the same for network addresses.

My comment is addressed at "Same goes for DNS. You used to request the name and it was yours. No yearly fees."

> Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_(file)

And where do you think the money to pay the ARPANET contracts came from?

Well, in case anyone was wondering, the answer is US taxpayers: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x07

Sorry. Didn't catch the context.

The cost to run the DNS servers was fixed (and mostly still is, at least compared to the money raked in by registration fees).

That's both untrue and irrelevant to this discussion.