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

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#131

Post by Niten »

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.

I can confirm that, my home network is currently routing a /60 from Comcast.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#132

Post by sethj »

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…

Linux doesn't support it? My Comcast router has a /64 given to it by Comcast and all my linux boxes connected to it work like a charm.. although I haven't been able to get my dd-wrt router to pass them on yet.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#133

Post by ajross »

sethj wrote: post #132
ajross wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Linux doesn't support it? My Comcast router has a /64 given to it by Comcast and all my linux boxes connected to it work like a charm.. although I haven't been able to get my dd-wrt router to pass them on yet.

Linux supports it just fine, you have to do the integration on your own. If you want to use the distro-provided DHCP setup, you need to work out the NetworkManager hooks on your own to add the PD client at the right spots.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#134

Post by apostacy »

ghaff wrote: post #119
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…

>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. Isn't selling them off to someone who will pay money for them pretty much the definition of making them available for someone who has a use for them? It's not like you can't buy an IPv4 address if you want one because Amazon and Google own them all. We just hav…

I guess it's a matter of opinion. If a university had some prime real estate, they could sell it to the highest bidder so that they could build a shopping mall, or they could donate it to a non-profit that would improve society in some way, thereby fulfilling their mission, to improve society. Or they could just cash out and getting more money could arguably improve society in a less tangible, less measurable way.

Universities are uniquely positioned to not be constrained by market forces. Part of the reason that universities get privileged access to things, is because they are seen as working in the public interest. Government and business and wealthy donors throw money at universities, because they want to see innovation and public good come from it.

Maybe that's idealistic of me, and universities are just a kind of business, and only that. MIT already gives the public free hosting, with an externally routable, unfirewalled ip4 or ip6 address, to anyone who comes on campus. I don't think any other universities in the world do that. And MIT does this at great expense. (this is how Aaron Schwarz was able to download so much of JSTOR)

It makes no financial sense for MIT to be doing this. Perhaps they should lock down their network as much as possible, and probably outsource it's management.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#135

Post by kiallmacinnes »

flyinghamster wrote: post #107
kiallmacinnes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The edge router can do DHCP-PD, but it needs some configuration for it to do it, there's lots of info on the Ubuiquiti forums about it. Good luck!

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#136

Post by kiallmacinnes »

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…

I suspect most people don't use a Linux box as their router (with the obvious exception of router distros and embedded Linux on routers).

Most people will read this, I think, and think a Linux client won't accept a V6 from a router that has obtained it's delegation via DHCP-PD..

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#137

Post by darklajid »

RKearney wrote: post #57
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. How hard have you looked? My iPhone has native IPv6 on Verizon.

Whoa. I got quite some downvotes - probably from people living in completely different environments.

I'm from Germany. We have three big players here: Vodafone (my corporate mobile), Deutsche Telekom, EPlus (I think that is owned by/known as Orange elsewhere?).

Vodafone: No ipv6 address Telekom: Can't test EPlus: No ipv6 address

Google's ipv6 test (I checked with 'ip addr' before and don't get any ipv6 address other than the link-local one): Left SIM is Vodafone, right one is a reseller for EPlus.

http://imgur.com/a/TNSFy

In other words: Maybe, maybe ONE of the three mobile networks hands out ipv6 in Germany (I doubt it though?). For me and everyone around me, ipv6 services are unreachable from any phone and accessing ipv6 services from random machines (friend's house, hotel network) is highly unlikely. Like .. I'd give it a 10% chance to work and my home network is ipv6 only for years now, so it's not like I haven't tried..

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#138

Post by darklajid »

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.

I replied to a different post in this thread, but ipv6 isn't available for me (Germany). Sure, my devices would support it..

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#139

Post by tbyehl »

VLM wrote: post #70
pilom wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm so old that I predate CIDR and in the old days before netmasks the netmask was essentially implied by the first couple bits of an ip address so all msb zero ip addrs were class A aka /8 allocations. All MSB 00 or whatever it was were class B implying a netmask of 255.255.0.0 aka a /16 allocation. Before CIDR you couldn't route or advertise rando netmasks like a /9 or a /20. There were no steps between a /16 and a…

One of my friends took a CCNA class and had her mind blown by Class C != /24. I was shocked they're still teaching anything about classful networking in 2017. I think the last time I saw RIPv1 was 1998.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#140

Post by rlyshw »

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'm the VP of the Linux users group at the University of Delaware and we have several servers in the central data center connected to the university's subnet(128.4.0.0/16) with unfettered access to the general internet. No NAT, and limited firewall.

Our Webserver is on a subdomain of the .edu(lug.udel.edu) and is totally accessible from the internet. It even listens for incoming connections. We run a mail server, a mirror, and an IRC server on there. It's great because even alumni can connect from wherever. I think there is a central firewall for every connection coming in, but I haven't run into problems for my uses.

In fact, every system registered for an IP on the UD intranet is assigned a public, world-accessible IP on the 128.4.0.0/16 subnet and can listen for incoming connections. Even wireless devices.

Post reply on HN