MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8 • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#51

Post by gpvos » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #28

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…

>I think universities should make these resources that they've been granted available to students and researchers. MIT student body size: ~11,200 Unique IPs on this block: ~16.7 MILLION. That's ~1500 unique IPs per student.[1] >Students ran servers in their dorms. Clubs ran servers. Some professors ran servers. Well, they're still keeping a whole boatload and IPv6 is here, so you're lamenting a scenario that isn't ac…

MIT keeping their /8 would actually make IPv4 addresses more scarce and thus encourage other organizations to migrate to IPv6 faster. But on the other hand, they would be crazy not to do anything with that money.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#52

Post by deathanatos » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:26 PM UTC

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?"

Comcast (I have a business class plan; this is not their residential offering) also changed my "static" IPv4 address at one point, as well. They claimed to have allocated the same IP to two different accounts.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#53

Post by apaprocki » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

plandis wrote: post #13

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?"

If you can find an ISP that supports IPv6 quite a few of them (maybe all?) support prefix delegation. A /64 isn't uncommon from ISPs in Seattle.

I have Time Warner Cable in NYC and get a delegated /64. FiOS definitely does not support IPv6 at all.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#54

Post by flyinghamster » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

buzer wrote: post #39

flyinghamster wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That doesn't sound correct. Are you absolutely sure you aren't also getting a prefix delegation thru DHCPv6? That's currently the common way to provide IPv6 connectivity currently for residential users. From what I remember hearing, Comcast was giving /60s thru PD.

No, I don't get a prefix. No /60, no /64, not even a /120, just one single address. A /128. Maybe I should jump on their forums and raise a fuss. I'm not at all confident that calling tech support would get me to someone who even had a clue what IPv6 is.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#55

Post by jhulla » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

LSC

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#56

Post by takeda » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:29 PM UTC

trollied wrote: post #34

xkcd explained what a mess the allocations were ages ago: https://xkcd.com/195/

I guess that's just human nature, we are doing similar with IPv6 right now. The smallest allocation for IPv6 is /64 that's 1.84467440737096E19 addresses.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#57

Post by RKearney » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:29 PM UTC

darklajid wrote: post #27

plandis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can find an ISP that supports IPv6 quite a few of them (maybe all?) support prefix delegation. A /64 isn't uncommon from ISPs in Seattle.

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.

How hard have you looked? My iPhone has native IPv6 on Verizon.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#58

Post by kelnos » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:35 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #44

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.

I agree with you, but I guess you could say that those IPs have "appreciated" in value from $0 way-back-when to some considerable sum today.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#59

Post by ghaff » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:41 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #44

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.

AFAIK, Stanford was the only other university with a /8 though I may be wrong. In any case, I'm not sure what the issue is with extracting money from Amazon for something they own. There are plenty of companies that were in early on that got /8s for relative pennies. Some even have two today by way of acquisition.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#60

Post by syncsynchalt » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 9:43 PM UTC

eric_the_read wrote: post #40

aidenn0 wrote: post #11

Does HP still own 15/8 and 16/8? I remember visiting there once and everyone had public internet addresses.

"public" in the sense of theoretically routable, yes, but most of them were firewalled off, so they might as well have been RFC1918 addresses for all the good it did you. The worst part about getting 16/8 from Compaq was that it wasn't contiguous address space, so you couldn't use a single netmask for both. :(

It was contiguous, but didn't aggregate under a single bitmask. For example if it had been 14/8 and 15/8 (instead of 15/8 and 16/8) then they would have held the world's only /7.