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

91–100 of 146 posts

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#91

Post by throwaway2048 »

mortehu wrote: post #88
knd775 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They answered that question 6 times in their comment.

If you can't access IPv6 enabled sites, you can't access Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, or Netflix, who all enabled IPv6 permanently in 2012[1]. According to [2], around a third of US has IPv6 connectivity. If AAAA records constitute some big problem, it's not well known. 1. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1 2. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

Thats not how it works, if you only have IPv4, AAAA records have no effect. Google et all continue to work via IPv4.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#92

Post by lamontcg »

apostacy wrote: post #80
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…

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…

We really need to just pick a date and turn off ipv4 because its the only way to make this guy change.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#93

Post by __jal »

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.

FTR, I don't get a prefix from them, either.

I tunnel all traffic through Comcast via a VPN, though, because I consider them a hostile network, so I don't especially care.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#94

Post by tanderson92 »

notyourwork wrote: post #75
tanderson92 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't follow.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#95

Post by pedrocr »

ajross wrote: post #79
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…

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 pre…

>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).

I think OpenWRT has all you need for this. At least I think that's exactly what I did with my ISP config on my own router just with the LuCi web interface.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#97

Post by ihattendorf »

ajross wrote: post #79
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…

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 pre…

Yep, same with Cox in my area. I'm running Sophos UTM Home which supports prefix delegation, I'm sure there are others that are plug and play as well.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#98

Post by klodolph »

apostacy wrote: post #74
cperciva wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 endo…

How many IP addresses do the roughly 12,000 students, 1,000 faculty, and 8,600 staff at MIT use? Do they use an average of 800 publicly-routable IPv4 addresses per person? Do they need that many? Do they want that many? Do they have projects that would actually use those IP addresses?

Mind you, an /8 block might sell for maybe $3-$7 per address, or $50M on the conservative side.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#99

Post by Someone »

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…

"MIT [...] asked for over 16,000,000 of them"

I don't think they specifically asked for 16 million of them. Back at the time, that was the unit in which they were doled out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classful_network#Background:

"Originally, a 32-bit IPv4 address was logically subdivided into the network number field, the most significant 8 bits of an address, which specified the particular network a host was attached to, and the local address, also called rest field (the rest of the address), which uniquely identifies a host connected to that network. This format was sufficient at a time when only a few large networks existed, such as the ARPANET, which was assigned the network number 10, and before the wide proliferation of local area networks (LANs). As a consequence of this architecture, the address space supported only a low number (254) of independent networks, and it became clear very early on that this would not be enough."

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#100

Post by mortehu »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #91
mortehu wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't access IPv6 enabled sites, you can't access Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, or Netflix, who all enabled IPv6 permanently in 2012[1]. According to [2], around a third of US has IPv6 connectivity. If AAAA records constitute some big problem, it's not well known. 1. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1 2. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

Thats not how it works, if you only have IPv4, AAAA records have no effect. Google et all continue to work via IPv4.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "Thats not how it works".

I was referring to people with broken IPv6 setups, mostly Teredo and 6to4 (old Mac OS X versions), for whom IPv4 worked but IPv6 was not actually routable. At the time, publishing AAAA records would lock out all of those users.

Post reply on HN