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

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#71

Post by [deleted] »

gpvos wrote: post #51
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

[deleted]

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#72

Post by knd775 »

runjake wrote: post #65
mickrussom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 solves mAAAAny issues. DNS issues causes MAAAAny more. I dAAAAbble in v6 here AAAAnd there AAAAnd the situAAAAtion is still pretty dire.

Guy who manages a two-dozen site v6 network with tens of thousands of clients here. What issues are you referring to?

They answered that question 6 times in their comment.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#74

Post by apostacy »

cperciva wrote: post #26
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…

That's too bad. I think universities should make these resources that they've been granted available to students and researchers. They are... indirectly. MIT can do far more to assist students and researchers using the money they raise by selling off IP addresses than they can by holding on to the addresses in case 16 million students all decide that they want to host their own podcasts.

I don't think MIT needs any more money. Universities are often endowed with special assets that others organizations are not.

Yes, universities should dole out as many IP addresses as students want. Where else will students get an opportunity to build something with that infrastructure?

Maybe the university could use their infrastructure to create a non-profit ISP that serves some underutilized market.

If I were endowing land to a university, I would want them to use it, or make it available for the public good. Not just sell it off.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#75

Post by notyourwork »

tanderson92 wrote: post #67
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…

Many universities still own generous blocks, though historically there were possibly many more[1]. My university, Caltech, still has the 131.215.0.0 - 131.215.255.255 block and has student dorms, graduate student housing, and office buildings wired up exactly as you describe. They also happen to own the 134.4.0.0 - 134.4.255.255 block, though I have never seen an actual server used there linked externally or internal…

131.215.0.0/16

134.4.0.0/16

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#76

Post by apostacy »

VLM wrote: post #64
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…

"carve out some IPv6 space from my Linode and tunnel it to my home network." I'm planning on doing exactly this using openvpn as my transport (because I already have an extensive ipv4 openvpn system). Has anyone tried it? I'm not interested so much in how to do it, which I think I know, but in anecdotes along the lines of "it makes openvpn crash" or "linode told me I was being abusive and cut me off" or whatever. I'v…

I tunnel all of my traffic through my Linode. I had to disable ipv6, because I was getting constant captcha checks from facebook, cloudflare, and google. No matter how many different ipv6 addresses I tried, traffic is always marked as suspicious. As soon as I disabled ipv6, everything went smoothly.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#77

Post by driverdan »

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…

Are there schools that NAT student computers? That would be pretty shitty.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#78

Post by kiallmacinnes »

flyinghamster wrote: post #54
buzer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just to be sure, with a routed network being aimed at your house, you'll actually receive two subnets (well, a single address in one subnet, and a whole second subnet). You need to use DHCP-PD or similar to make use of it.

The /128 sounds perfectly normal, and is used as a "point to point" link between the ISP and your modem. Over this, DHCP prefix delegation typically gives you a whole second subnet of /60 or so. If your modem isn't handling DHCP-PD, then all your see is 1 measly address even though they've likely allocated and pushed 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 addresses to you.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#79

Post by ajross »

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…

Actually, Comcast supports DHCP prefix delegation (I'm led to believe everywhere, but it works at my home anyway), which is pretty much the Right Thing in this space. Your default DHCPv6 request is from a single client and it returns a single IP, as expected. And you can then do NAT across that if you want, which is what their default routers do.

But if you want a subnet, you can make a second DHCPv6 request with prefix delegation metadata, and the server will establish a route for a full /64 subnet to your existing IP and return it to you. Then you can hand these out however you want (though they won't give you bigger than a /64 so you can do internal subnet routing).

The only annoyance is that none of the existing Linux distros support this yet as part of their network client integration, so you have to script it yourself around dhclient (see the -P argument), which is a little hairy if you want to get the hooks right (I punted and just did it once manually and left dhclient running).

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#80

Post by apostacy »

dangero wrote: post #22
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…

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…

IPV6 is all well and good, but I am not optimistic about it. Why should a university deploy it, and introduce all sorts of new problems? Mine hasn't. And I don't blame them.

No, I think that our future is isolated carrier-grade NAT, connecting to cloud services exclusively. And that makes me sad.

I had to disable ipv6 on my Linode, because Clouldflare, Google, and Facebook do not seem to trust any ipv6 traffic coming from Linode. Only using ipv4 has fixed everything.

And, as for ip4 blocks being obsolete, I still think it's wrong to sell them off. Universities were endowed with these. If they don't have a use for them, they should make them available for someone who does. Not just sell them to be used for some corporation's infrastructure.

I hate how so many people on hackernews seem to think that not selling these ipv4 addresses is a "waste". People are only looking at this in purely financial terms. I consider it to be wasteful to sell them to Microsoft or Amazon or whatever. No matter how much money they offer. Universities are supposed to use the gifts they are given to try to better society.

Aren't these ip addresses going to just be used for things like NAT traversal? Why doesn't MIT make them available for some non profit to offer that service as a public utility?

If a flight school has an operating runway and hanger, should they just make all their students use flight simulators and demolish their runway? Should an agricultural school sell off their farmland to real estate developers? If their students really weren't benefiting from their property, then they should donate it to some organization that could carry on the spirit of what they were supposed to be doing with it.

Post reply on HN