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

Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

ripe.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#71

Post by positr0n »

aklemm wrote: post #66

What's going on with IPv6 that is preventing it from alleviating the IPv4 scarcity?

I always thought that basically the only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is the number of bytes in an address.

Lately I've been learning a lot more about IPv6 and there are a TON of subtle differences in the protocols that matter if you're operating a large network. Random example I recently read about: the way link-local addresses are generated. [0]

Not that this excuses inaction, but it does give me more empathy for orgs struggling with, or not doing, the transition to IPv6.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address

[1]: Best doc I can find in 30 seconds that covers some of the differences: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/learn-about/ipv4...

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#72

Post by GoblinSlayer »

PappaPatat wrote: post #47
superkuh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the mobile telco IPv4 blocks, or lack thereof, you'll see that NAT is here, heavily, almost ubiqitously, as carrier NAT. It's destroyed the network functionality of mobile telecommunications (lacking routable ipv4) and made them essentially dumb terminals lacking any ability to participate in the 'net. They can only consume other's services.

Can you explain what you mean with "It's destroyed the network functionality of mobile telecommunications"? Since I can think of exactly zero reasons one needs his handheld to be reachable from the Internet (that has not been long solved).

Distributed applications and independence from monopolies that aggressively hoard and equally aggressively leak personal data.

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#73

Post by C1sc0cat »

Avamander wrote: post #37
mercora wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany i see most ISPs adopting IPv6 by using DS-Lite[0] which is basically handing out only IPv6 addresses and using CGNAT for IPv4 connectivity by mapping IPv4 addresses into IPv6 address space on the CPE. I don't like that at all as it makes you practically unreachable from the IPv4 address space. In order to get IPv4 addresses you often have to convince them on the phone and describe your use case. When you'v…

Because schools don't talk about IPv6 enough to make sysadmins and programmers comfortable with it, I think that's the root cause.

And not that it was a bad idea in the first place ?

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#76

Post by gorgoiler »

IPv6 isn’t such a monster, I found, after biting the bullet seriously last year. There are still way too many IPv4 only sites though.

As with anything IP related there’s a culture that’s just as important as the technical side. If your ISP gives you anything less than a /56 for your site (a VPS running multiple containers is a valid definition of site!) take your business elsewhere.

There’s a lot of hyperbole about v6 address space, but even taking account of its sparseness, IP rationing really is for v4 only.

For every /24 allocated to an LIR (NB 2 bits fewer than the subject of this RIPE bulletin) they can assign as many sites a /56 as there are current IPv4 addresses in total.

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#77

Post by beckler »

Bluecobra wrote: post #54
tyingq wrote: post #28

I wonder if they will implement some kind of clawback for orgs that are sitting on large chunks of sparsely used blocks. Old tech companies and colleges come to mind. https://myip.ms/info/ip_ranges_blocks/Major_Biggest_IP_Addre...

I doubt that, but I think we're going to see more and more companies to sell off the unused blocks. Last year MIT sold off 1/2 of 18.0.0.0/8 to Amazon. It looks like the going rate per IP is between $20-$24 currently: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-salesw

GE did the same thing. It sold 3.0.0.0/8 to amazon about a year ago.

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#78

Post by miyuru »

nathancahill wrote: post #36

How does this apply to email delivery? The biggest factor is having a "clean" IP address. Do these eventually become prohibitively expensive? Does email protocols switch to IPv6 and stop considering address reputation?

Currently as only a handful of providers even support receiving IPv6 mail and due to spammers still using IPv4, we don't know yet. Usually /64 is considered for reputation in abuseipdb.

Another fact is gmail which supports IPv6 requires a PTR pointing back to the domain the mail is sending.[1] Currently a lot of providers which gives IPv6 does not support adding PTR records for IPv6, because it is handled differently than IPv4. This has led to lot of people defaulting to IPv4 when sending mail.[2]

[1] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126

[2] https://google.com/search?q=ipv6+gmail+ptr

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#79

Post by gorgoiler »

tyingq wrote: post #28

I wonder if they will implement some kind of clawback for orgs that are sitting on large chunks of sparsely used blocks. Old tech companies and colleges come to mind. https://myip.ms/info/ip_ranges_blocks/Major_Biggest_IP_Addre...

When the options are: let them profit awkwardly from a windfall, claw it back against their will, or make their IPv4 assets obsolete, focusing on the latter seems most productive.

The UK’s largest mobile provider now gives me an IPv6 only connection and I didn’t even notice.

Re: Update: Approaching IPv4 Run-out

#80

Post by tormeh »

gorgoiler wrote: post #76

IPv6 isn’t such a monster, I found, after biting the bullet seriously last year. There are still way too many IPv4 only sites though. As with anything IP related there’s a culture that’s just as important as the technical side. If your ISP gives you anything less than a /56 for your site (a VPS running multiple containers is a valid definition of site!) take your business elsewhere. There’s a lot of hyperbole about v…

Why would you do that? The promise of IPv6 to me is that all devices gets their own IP address, enabling us to move away from the server-client architecture of the internet. Allocating all IPv6 addresses to commercial server operators would require us to continue using NAT, so then we might as well continue using IPv4.
Post reply on HN