Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

blog.achernya.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 188 posts

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#131

Post by imjustapie »

dheera wrote: post #109
jedberg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When MIT rolled out IPv4, the world wasn't ready for it either.

"Rolled out" is different from "forced to use". If I come up with a super-awesome computer vision algorithm and want to run a server in my dorm room to demo it, being forced to use IPv6-only when the school has enough IPv4 addresses is a stupid annoyance and will only reduce the number of people that can reach the website. Running on AWS or other IaaS service isn't an option for many students without much cash.

dheera really gets it! I can cruft decommissioned (but working) hardware from trash piles in loading docks; I cannot cruft AWS credit.

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#132

Post by compuguy »

lloeki wrote: post #87
dastbe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS does support ipv6 everywhere; the problem is that many consumers do not (I can't access ipv6 on my current provider w/o doing work on my side, for example) and so the need for public ipv4 is going to continue for years. I would be really happy to have only ipv6 addresses in my VPC, as that would make connecting up multiple VPCs much easier since I know their ip space won't overlap.

The situation over here is quite the opposite, if you're using the regular plans of the major ISPs (which is most people) you have IPv6. Free ADSL, which has been providing IPv6 access via 6rd for like 10 years, even started deployment of IPv6 only DSLAMs in April. This makes the absence of IPv6 on major platforms and sites very visible. There is no excuse not to have IPv6 today, especially for market leaders, and it…

Here in the US, Verizon wireline has been dragging their feet on a IPv6 deployment for years.

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#133

Post by compuguy »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #122

From the article: NAT deployment doesn't benefit the Institute in any way,... I have often had changes foisted upon me that when I looked at them I could see no benefit. In every instance the 'benefit' I didn't see was one that I typically didn't approve of and so hadn't listed in my set of 'possible benefits'. From reading the article though it sounds like MIT has had a very open and loosely (if at all) documented s…

The benefit is that they can use the proceeds of the sale of the IP block to upgrade their infrastructure.

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#134

Post by compuguy »

fragmede wrote: post #16
amq wrote: post #8

I'm all for supporting innovation and community services, but I think author is not mentioning other possible causes, like DMCAs, malware and spam (including unintended), which could have damaged the reputation. I just wonder why MIT didn't give more time to move and why it doesn't provide a replacement in eg cloud credits.

SIPB (MIT's volunteer student computing group) offers free "cloud hosting" to anyone with an Athena account. http://xvm.mit.edu/

Honestly that sounds like a better alternative, than hosting on bare metal.

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#135

Post by akhilcacharya »

juniorpatcher wrote: post #104
SadWebDeveloper wrote: post #88

My college didn't have internet campus wise, you had access to a limited, firewalled internet "protected" by Fortinet so i can't feel empathy for the MIT alumni since you can perfectly work without those tools.

Sorry that your college doesn't see Internet access the same way MIT does. But don't you think that by making its campus network more unnecessarily restrictive, MIT is setting a bad example?

Not OP, but not really.

In the age of AWS, maybe it's time the elites see how the other half lives?

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#136

Post by compuguy »

Symbiote wrote: post #34
smoyer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are advantages to being on a private network behind a firewall ... and they could still offer a DNS name and routing to your computer if it was on a private network. It's likely that the only difference is that you'd also have to specify what ports you want exposed to the outside world. This is a win for you from a security perspective - having additional layers of security won't hurt you.

NAT is not an additional layer of security. I run our servers on public IP addresses, behind a firewall. Troubleshooting and debugging is made much easier, and there's never any conflict with VPNs etc. > It's likely that the only difference is that you'd also have to specify what ports you want exposed to the outside world Port 80, please. With NAT, you can't offer that to more than one computer.

That's great and all, but the majority of us have lived in a IPv4 NAT world for most of our lives. A previous poster even mentioned that a student group runs a cloud hosting service on campus, making some of this moot:

"SIPB (MIT's volunteer student computing group) offers free "cloud hosting" to anyone with an Athena account. http://xvm.mit.edu/"

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#137

Post by ChuckMcM »

compuguy wrote: post #133
ChuckMcM wrote: post #122

From the article: NAT deployment doesn't benefit the Institute in any way,... I have often had changes foisted upon me that when I looked at them I could see no benefit. In every instance the 'benefit' I didn't see was one that I typically didn't approve of and so hadn't listed in my set of 'possible benefits'. From reading the article though it sounds like MIT has had a very open and loosely (if at all) documented s…

The benefit is that they can use the proceeds of the sale of the IP block to upgrade their infrastructure.

Agreed and it doesn't seem to be one that the author considered.

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#138

Post by compuguy »

Symbiote wrote: post #85
shif wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can, a simple reverse proxy can let the same port be used for multiple servers and pick based on hostname or query (for http). reverse proxies like nginx also have plain tcp support so it allows you to easily run several services

So, now I have to run a reverse proxy -- another point of failure, another thing to debug when something's not working. That's a hack to work around a shortage of IP addresses. Why would I use one, when I don't have that shortage?

Well, you can have tons of static IP addresses, or funding to support MIT and future IT upgrades.

Re: By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

#140

Post by kodablah »

unsignedint wrote: post #46
imjustapie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that would just be ridiculous, considering that experimenting with Tor relays is like a favorite student passtime...

You don't need to run a Tor relay in order to run a hidden service. I have thrown in this idea as it's a dead simple (cheap/free, and you don't have to coordinate with anyone) to get your stuff publicly, let alone for experimental purpose.

> You don't need to run a Tor relay in order to run a hidden service

In fact, you shouldn't run them both [0]

0 - https://riseup.net/en/security/network-security/tor/onionser...

Post reply on HN