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

Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

southgatearc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#61

Post by xxpor »

MertsA wrote: post #20
cletus wrote: post #12

So we've now had several interesting cases of how breaking changes to something popular (even foundational) are made and how that works out: - Perl 5 to Perl 6. I think this was an unmitigated disaster. 20 years ago Perl 5 had a lot of users. I'm pretty sure it's completely irrelevant now; - Python 2 to Python 3. It's been almost 12 years and we still have Python 2. Personally I think a lot of bad decisions were made…

>everything got thrown into IPv6 without solving the two problems that actually matters That would arguably be much better suited to a layer 4 solution. SCTP has solved both of those problems and is now 2 decades old. I have in the past harped on what a shame it is that QUIC was built, basically reinventing features of SCTP poorly. SCTP could still be viable over the open internet on IPv6 if it's done before the inev…

SCTP-over-UDP is still totally viable.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#62

Post by tekromancr »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #55
criddell wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want IPv6 so I can stop having to faff around with NAT. What makes you think your ISP will give you more than one IP even when they are no longer in short supply? If it's something that has value to you, it's something they will want to be paid for.

IPv6's has a fixed subnet size of 64-bits[1]. A router needs its own subnet, ergo everyone gets their own 64-bit address range. ISPs cannot give each customer a single IPv6 address because that would require each customer to have a single device connected directly to their router with no router in the CPE - basically like how dial-up used to work. There's no demand for a service like that. [1] See https://www.ripe.ne…

Wait, so does that mean that every customer would have 18.45 QUINTILLION addresses to use?

God, I knew the IPv6 space was insanely large, but Jesus h, man.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#63

Post by Animats »

mike_d wrote: post #41
tzs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast started rolling out IPv6 across their network a long time ago. They hit 100% support on their broadband network in 2014. They run a lot of the own stuff on IPv6, such as on-demand video on their set-top boxes. I think any home modem/router that they support that did not support IPv6 hit EOL long ago and was replaced. There may be some class A owners who are trying to hold back IPv6 so they can make money off…

Deploying IPv6 is nice, but it doesn't impact the value of IPv4 at all. Any internet service you want to be widely available will need to be dual-stack as long as we are alive.

Maybe not. Google says their traffic is now at 30% IPv6, and climbing at 5%/year.[1]

Worldwide, Google is undercounting, because they are blocked in China. Google claims that China is 0.27% IPv6, but actually China is around 55%, according to APNIC. Policy goal in China is all IPv6 by 2025.

[1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#64

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

jrwr wrote: post #60
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6's has a fixed subnet size of 64-bits[1]. A router needs its own subnet, ergo everyone gets their own 64-bit address range. ISPs cannot give each customer a single IPv6 address because that would require each customer to have a single device connected directly to their router with no router in the CPE - basically like how dial-up used to work. There's no demand for a service like that. [1] See https://www.ripe.ne…

RIPE just has a rule about only having ISPs hand out those /64s there is nothing to prevent someone internally to then split that /64 into smaller chunks to hand out to internal clients. Thats the would point of a subnet!

I'm not sure if that's well-supported by IPv6 though. Documents I've read do agree that it's possible to have smaller subnets in IPv6 (e.g. https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/network/ipv6/subn... and https://serverfault.com/questions/426183/how-does-ipv6-subne... ) but that the pain and hassle required to do-so isn't worth it.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#65

Post by anderspitman »

MertsA wrote: post #20
cletus wrote: post #12

So we've now had several interesting cases of how breaking changes to something popular (even foundational) are made and how that works out: - Perl 5 to Perl 6. I think this was an unmitigated disaster. 20 years ago Perl 5 had a lot of users. I'm pretty sure it's completely irrelevant now; - Python 2 to Python 3. It's been almost 12 years and we still have Python 2. Personally I think a lot of bad decisions were made…

>everything got thrown into IPv6 without solving the two problems that actually matters That would arguably be much better suited to a layer 4 solution. SCTP has solved both of those problems and is now 2 decades old. I have in the past harped on what a shame it is that QUIC was built, basically reinventing features of SCTP poorly. SCTP could still be viable over the open internet on IPv6 if it's done before the inev…

What do you see as the main advantages of SCTP over QUIC?

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#66

Post by md5person »

criddell wrote: post #48
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has long had IPv6 support in their operating systems, so I don't think they have been trying to hold it back either. And Microsoft has supported IPv6 since Windows 2000: https://news.microsoft.com/2000/03/15/microsoft-announces-ip... . I understand that LTE networks are exclusively IPv6, ditto "5G". My frustration with IPv6 is that my home ISP (Wave Broadband's DOCSIS service) is still IPv4 and they still hav…

> I want IPv6 so I can stop having to faff around with NAT. What makes you think your ISP will give you more than one IP even when they are no longer in short supply? If it's something that has value to you, it's something they will want to be paid for.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted, but I think it's yet another confirmation that this place has gone full Reddit.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#67

Post by wmf »

md5person wrote: post #66
criddell wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want IPv6 so I can stop having to faff around with NAT. What makes you think your ISP will give you more than one IP even when they are no longer in short supply? If it's something that has value to you, it's something they will want to be paid for.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted, but I think it's yet another confirmation that this place has gone full Reddit.

Performative cynicism + speaking hypothetically about past events = I'd downvote it twice if I could. In reality very very few ISPs are giving one IPv6 address per customer. ISPs are greedy but they're not wantonly cruel.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#68

Post by KA9Q »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #36
tzs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast started rolling out IPv6 across their network a long time ago. They hit 100% support on their broadband network in 2014. They run a lot of the own stuff on IPv6, such as on-demand video on their set-top boxes. I think any home modem/router that they support that did not support IPv6 hit EOL long ago and was replaced. There may be some class A owners who are trying to hold back IPv6 so they can make money off…

> Apple has long had IPv6 support in their operating systems, so I don't think they have been trying to hold it back either. And Microsoft has supported IPv6 since Windows 2000: https://news.microsoft.com/2000/03/15/microsoft-announces-ip... . I understand that LTE networks are exclusively IPv6, ditto "5G". My frustration with IPv6 is that my home ISP (Wave Broadband's DOCSIS service) is still IPv4 and they still hav…

Do you know about Hurricane Electric's free IPv6 tunnel broker? www.tunnelbroker.com. I have used it for a very long time, and it has been very stable and reliable. The only technical requirement is that you have control of a globally routable IPv4 address where you can set up a tunnel endpoint. I.e., "carrier grade NAT" (a contradiction in terms) won't suffice.

I still use HE's tunnel even though Spectrum Cable has provided good native IPv6 service for several years. Ping times over HE are just as good as native Spectrum, probably because everybody peers at the same place in Los Angeles.

The only problem with HE is that Netflix is clamping down on VPNs, and they consider a HE tunnel to be a VPN. So my home router advertises the native Spectrum prefix with a higher priority than the HE prefix.

My own frustration with IPv6 is that virtually no public hotspots support it. My Verizon phone does, so I often use it as a hotspot even when public WiFi is available.

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#69

Post by dbt00 »

tekromancr wrote: post #62
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6's has a fixed subnet size of 64-bits[1]. A router needs its own subnet, ergo everyone gets their own 64-bit address range. ISPs cannot give each customer a single IPv6 address because that would require each customer to have a single device connected directly to their router with no router in the CPE - basically like how dial-up used to work. There's no demand for a service like that. [1] See https://www.ripe.ne…

Wait, so does that mean that every customer would have 18.45 QUINTILLION addresses to use? God, I knew the IPv6 space was insanely large, but Jesus h, man.

2001:: is a 16 bit prefix in which every single customer could get a /48, i.e. you could allocate 65k subnets of 18.45 quint addresses on your network and give one of those to everyone with an ipv4 address and not run out, and that's still only 1/65536th of the total address space.

128 bits is a lot.

(the /64 as the physical subnet allows using hardware MAC addresses and RNG temporary/private addresses instead of needing DHCP/etc).

Re: Sale of amateur radio AMPRnet TCP/IP addresses raised $108M

#70

Post by KA9Q »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #55
criddell wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want IPv6 so I can stop having to faff around with NAT. What makes you think your ISP will give you more than one IP even when they are no longer in short supply? If it's something that has value to you, it's something they will want to be paid for.

IPv6's has a fixed subnet size of 64-bits[1]. A router needs its own subnet, ergo everyone gets their own 64-bit address range. ISPs cannot give each customer a single IPv6 address because that would require each customer to have a single device connected directly to their router with no router in the CPE - basically like how dial-up used to work. There's no demand for a service like that. [1] See https://www.ripe.ne…

It is not true that an ISP cannot give each customer just a single IPv6 address. The Linux box I use as a router gets a single (i.e., /128) address from Spectrum Cable on its upstream interface, and it has to explicitly ask for a separate /64 prefix to advertise on the local interface (this is called prefix delegation, PD).

So it's certainly possible for an ISP to give a customer just one IPv6 address. I'm not sure, but I think there is no rule that prefixes obtained with PD must be /64's. They could in principle give you a /126 or /127 to limit you to just a few hosts on your LAN, and charge to give you anything better. This would break stateless autoconfiguration but it would still work with DHCPv6.

Your best workaround is still www.tunnelbroker.com, HE's free IPv6 tunnel service.

Post reply on HN