81–90 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That's a good point...further scarcity will drive the prices to a point where selling is very attractive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NAT is annoying though
For what real world reasons?
Only yesterday I had to wheel out Wireshark to prove to a telephony services provider that their bod had forgotten to update a PBX with its changed WAN address.
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.
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.
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.
A lot of people don't really understand exactly what moving from 32bit to 128-bit addresses means.
Let's say that we waste 65535/65536, or about 99.9985% of IPv6 address space on pointless allocations, leaving only one /16 left. This still means there are 5 192 296 858 534 827 628 530 496 329 220 096 addresses left to allocate, or 5*10^30, or enough addresses that if we had to distribute them to a trillion people per planet living on a trillion planets, they'd still get 5 billion addresses per person.
What's going on with IPv6 that is preventing it from alleviating the IPv4 scarcity?
The last one is starting to not be true, but it was a long, long, time getting here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Apple have made it a hard requirement for apps to operate correctly on IPv6-only connections for a few years now. If your app doesn't work unless it's on IPv4, Apple will reject it.
Just means no hardcoded ipv4 or incompatible API calls. So that ipv6 to ipv4 gateways work.
So, the app is ready, but apple isn't dictating much about your backend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There is no address allocation scheme that would force you to use NAT on IPv6. A lot of people don't really understand exactly what moving from 32bit to 128-bit addresses means. Let's say that we waste 65535/65536, or about 99.9985% of IPv6 address space on pointless allocations, leaving only one /16 left. This still means there are 5 192 296 858 534 827 628 530 496 329 220 096 addresses left to allocate, or 5*10^30,…
Each ISP can have 65k customers who are big orgs with complex site needs and a /48, or 4 billion small customers getting a bundle of individual networks on their /56.
In the latter, each has address space for, say, 256 VLANs which allows network isolation of many internet enabled fridges.
And in theory the current scheme allows for 16 million ISPs to exist, though in practice not all the address space is available.
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 f…
If IPv6 was just IPv4 with extra addresses, the adoption rate would have been very quick.