Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

whois.arin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#41

Post by geraldcombs »

flyinghamster wrote: post #32
dangero wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPV6 solves this, plus even without you don't need anything close to this amount of IPs to do what you're describing. It's a fairly niche case to need that many public IPs and it seems a little crazy to hold that many just in case some researcher might want to use them. Even your comment about streaming, seems like mainly nostalgia vs reality as you kind of admit. Any modern streaming infrastructure works from behind…

I've tried to run IPv6 on my Comcast connection. Unsurprisingly, Comcast doesn't get the point of IPv6. They allocate one single IPv6 address to my router. That's right, ONE. LOUSY. ADDRESS. This seems to be a "feature" of owning your own modem rather than renting one of theirs. I hesitate to even try to get this fixed via their tech support. I guess if I want IPv6 connectivity, I'm either going to have to get a tunn…

You should be able to get a /56 or /60 from them using DHCPV6-PD.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#42

Post by [deleted] »

flyinghamster wrote: post #32
dangero wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPV6 solves this, plus even without you don't need anything close to this amount of IPs to do what you're describing. It's a fairly niche case to need that many public IPs and it seems a little crazy to hold that many just in case some researcher might want to use them. Even your comment about streaming, seems like mainly nostalgia vs reality as you kind of admit. Any modern streaming infrastructure works from behind…

I've tried to run IPv6 on my Comcast connection. Unsurprisingly, Comcast doesn't get the point of IPv6. They allocate one single IPv6 address to my router. That's right, ONE. LOUSY. ADDRESS. This seems to be a "feature" of owning your own modem rather than renting one of theirs. I hesitate to even try to get this fixed via their tech support. I guess if I want IPv6 connectivity, I'm either going to have to get a tunn…

[deleted]

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#43

Post by ghaff »

simonster wrote: post #18

Letter to MIT community: https://gist.github.com/simonster/e22e50cd52b7dffcf5a4db2b8e... tl;dr MIT is selling off half of 18.0.0.0/8 (8 million IPs)

Slightly longer tl;dr IPv6 is coming and we're working on the upgrade. In the meantime we have 14 million unused IP addresses out of our 16 million allocation. So it seems pretty reasonable to sell 8 million of those off given that they're worth a lot of money and we'll never need them prior to IPv6 adoption.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#44

Post by takeda »

simonster wrote: post #18

Letter to MIT community: https://gist.github.com/simonster/e22e50cd52b7dffcf5a4db2b8e... tl;dr MIT is selling off half of 18.0.0.0/8 (8 million IPs)

heh, so they got the 18/8 for free, refused to replace /8 with /16 like other universities did to help relieve IP shortage, but then they simply sold the 8 millions of the addresses for profit, while still hugging to remaining 8 million, even though that their student body size is only ~11,200.

I guess that's good for them, but it's still a dick behavior.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#45

Post by selectodude »

wolrah wrote: post #36
darklajid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No friend of mine is on ipv6. No mobile phone I've seen supports ipv6. Having an ipv6 prefix is useless to me (as someone that is behind the abomination called CGNAT / 'Dual Stack Lite').

> No mobile phone I've seen supports ipv6. T-Mobile LTE has been exclusively IPv6 on most phones for some time now. I'm pretty sure other mobile providers have done the same or are in the process of doing so. All my Android devices have supported IPv6 as long as I've had it running on my network. I don't have an iOS device but since T-Mobile sells them I assume they work with IPv6.

Verizon LTE is IPv6, too

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#46

Post by dpandey »

Really glad to see this happen. I (MIT alum) think this was a legacy of the past that had to change - MIT was just hoarding too many IP addresses. Not blaming MIT - it was a historical artifact, but most other universities had released theirs over the years and MIT hadn't.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#47

Post by payne92 »

smaili wrote: post #12
payne92 wrote: post #5

My how things change. At one point in the late 90s, I had an entire MIT Class C subnet at my house. Now, I've got 5 static IPs from Verizon FiOS on some ancient grandfathered plan. Years ago, they "changed" the addresses, prompting me to ask, "what part of 'static' is not clear?"

Just curious, was it a breach of contract or did they have one of those lovely small printed clauses no one ever reads :)

I believe the contract is silent on the "static-ness" of static IPs.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#48

Post by sallyfour »

apostacy wrote: post #14

That's too bad. I think universities should make these resources that they've been granted available to students and researchers. Last time I was at the MIT media lab for a conference, I was able to get an unfirewalled external ip address from their wireless network. It was amazing. I briefly streamed live audio of a talk via shoutcast, but of course, nobody uses that stuff anymore. It really makes you ponder what a…

CMU does still provide a public ip over wifi. You can even specify if you want a static one for a given mac address.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#49

Post by ghaff »

pilom wrote: post #31
d--b wrote: post #24

For the uninitiated, can someone give a brief explanation of what that means?

Computers on the internet are pointed to by special numbers. Usually the special numbers look like 4 numbers with '.' like 123.45.67.89 Each of those 4 numbers can be between 0 and 255 so (to be more simple) the lowest special number would be 0.0.0.0 and the highest would be 255.255.255.255. Back when the internet was still young, you would go to ARIN (the American Registry of Internet Numbers) and say "I think I nee…

One of your words is wrong though. Cambridge, not Boston :-) OK, we're picky about that sort of thing.

I think it's also more like the special big blocks of special numbers were given away without thinking much when the internet was young.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#50

Post by apaprocki »

flyinghamster wrote: post #32
dangero wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPV6 solves this, plus even without you don't need anything close to this amount of IPs to do what you're describing. It's a fairly niche case to need that many public IPs and it seems a little crazy to hold that many just in case some researcher might want to use them. Even your comment about streaming, seems like mainly nostalgia vs reality as you kind of admit. Any modern streaming infrastructure works from behind…

I've tried to run IPv6 on my Comcast connection. Unsurprisingly, Comcast doesn't get the point of IPv6. They allocate one single IPv6 address to my router. That's right, ONE. LOUSY. ADDRESS. This seems to be a "feature" of owning your own modem rather than renting one of theirs. I hesitate to even try to get this fixed via their tech support. I guess if I want IPv6 connectivity, I'm either going to have to get a tunn…

Not necessarily your situation -- but I noticed this from Time Warner as well and it turned out to be my old Airport Extreme hardware. Even with the latest firmware it wouldn't receive the delegated range. As soon as I upgraded to the latest model, it properly received a delegated range from TWC without me doing anything else. Just saying, there is a lot of reason to hate cable companies, but it's not always their fault :)
Post reply on HN