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

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#101

Post by scott00 »

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…

I get a /60 from Comcast in Chicago.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#102

Post by apostacy »

lamontcg wrote: post #92
apostacy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not me that's fixated on ipv4. I would love ipv6. But why aren't ISPs providing it? Why aren't universities and other large organizations switching to it by default?

ISPs don't care. They would rather everyone just use carrier-grade NAT.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#105

Post by apostacy »

klodolph wrote: post #98
apostacy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the ip addresses really aren't useful to them, they can provide them to someone who could carry on their spirit of improving society.

How about providing services to the general public in some way, then? Transfer them to a non-profit trust that will allocate them to anyone who would do something important with them.

If a university had extra land, I would argue that they provide it to someone who could give it back to the public in some way.

It is because universities are supposed to do this in the first place, that they are endowed with things.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#106

Post by flyinghamster »

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…

On Linode, were you using the default single IPv6 address, or did you request a prefix? I found that the default address was in a blacklisted /64, and couldn't send email without it getting bounced or blackholed. Once I got my own /64, the problems went away (but DKIM+SPF was also mandatory).

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#107

Post by flyinghamster »

kiallmacinnes wrote: post #78
flyinghamster wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hmmm, maybe I should revisit this. I first tried it a year or so ago with pfSense on a virtual machine. Between the IPv6 issues and generally poor performance (long story), I went back to my IPv4-only configuration with DD-WRT on a D-Link DIR-825.

I'm now using a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter POE, and maybe I should give it another shot. I'm not convinced I'll actually get a prefix from Comcast, though.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#108

Post by klodolph »

apostacy wrote: post #105
klodolph wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the ip addresses really aren't useful to them, they can provide them to someone who could carry on their spirit of improving society. How about providing services to the general public in some way, then? Transfer them to a non-profit trust that will allocate them to anyone who would do something important with them. If a university had extra land, I would argue that they provide it to someone who could give it bac…

I don't think we agree on what the purpose of a university is. I'd say the purposes of a University are research and post-secondary education. MIT is not some kind of general-purpose charity with the vague goal of improving society. It sounds like they decided that $50M is more useful than an /8 block for achieving their mission.

All I'm hearing in response is the unjustified assertion that the IPv4 addresses are more useful somehow. I'd like to hear why the IPv4 addresses are so useful, and why you need 17M of them, and how they'll improve society more than $50M of research or education would.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#109

Post by apostacy »

kiallmacinnes wrote: post #85
apostacy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This sounds like CloudFlare etc have just blacklisted hosting provider IPv6 blocks, as there a real easy way to get millions of "clean" IPs priced by the hour. CloudFlare etc certainly dont do this with SiXXS IPv6 addresses, or any traditional residential provider I'm aware of.

Well, I'd love to use ipv6. In fact, I can't wait. But, what am I supposed to do?

  * T-mobile: ipv4  
  * Office: ipv4  
  * Verizon: ipv4  
  * University: ipv4
  * Linode: ipv6 (but flagged as hostile)
Google will not just show me captchas, but will deactivate accounts if I use some of their apis. I had to reverify several accounts when I've tried using ipv6.

I'm not being backward about ipv4, I'm really not. But we're in denial about the fact that we still live in an ipv4 world. And I don't like seeing the last vestiges of non-profit ipv4 address space being liquidated.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#110

Post by syncsynchalt »

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…

That's surprising, in Denver Comcast gives my Time Capsule a /64 (and has for years, we were one of the earlier areas to get v6 service from them). Doubly surprising since the v6 RFCs all but forbid giving out less than a /64, and Comcast is a leader rather than follower of v6 technology. I wonder if the modem manufacturer is at fault instead.

I regularly ssh straight into to my suspended WoL Macbook over v6, and never went out of my way to set up a single bit of it. A half dozen new technologies working perfectly out of the box!

Post reply on HN