Live data from Hacker News

AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

github.com

31–40 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#31
post #2

low whistle I imagine they paid a pretty penny for those /12s. A thought comes to me: If IPv6 adoption continues to drag along, and AWS/Azure/GCP continue to expand their IP blocks like this, how quickly are we in danger of the cloud providers effectively being the Internet?

Yeah I would like the FTC go after new IPv4 deployments / mandate dual stack on anti-trust grounds.

How does IPv4's use translate to anti-trust?

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew about Apple and AT&T. DoD is really hoarding them, wow.

Honestly prudential is the one that stuns me. They’re an insurance company! Why do they need all those?!

Same with Ford. And while I do think the addresses should be returned, they should get market value or above for them. We should not punish companies for buying into the future, which turned out to be a great investment.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew about Apple and AT&T. DoD is really hoarding them, wow.

Honestly prudential is the one that stuns me. They’re an insurance company! Why do they need all those?!

Prudential got that block 5 year before IPv6 was introduced.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#35
post #3
post #2

low whistle I imagine they paid a pretty penny for those /12s. A thought comes to me: If IPv6 adoption continues to drag along, and AWS/Azure/GCP continue to expand their IP blocks like this, how quickly are we in danger of the cloud providers effectively being the Internet?

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

> WThe nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it.

No issues? So, how are people supposed to be able to access your machine then?

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#36

Meanwhile, Hetzner just added a staggering $19/address setup fee and a soon doubling of prices for IPv4 addresses from them ostensibly due to the rising costs of getting addresses, yet still has virtually no support for IPv6 on their offerings outside of a /64 per dedicated server. https://docs.hetzner.com/general/others/ipv4-pricing/

Why would you need anything other than a /64 on your server?

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#37

Meanwhile, Hetzner just added a staggering $19/address setup fee and a soon doubling of prices for IPv4 addresses from them ostensibly due to the rising costs of getting addresses, yet still has virtually no support for IPv6 on their offerings outside of a /64 per dedicated server. https://docs.hetzner.com/general/others/ipv4-pricing/

Huh? I've been using IPv6 on their cloud instances for years, and it works just perfect.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#38
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

I find the ipv6 address scary because IP geolocation gives that in the same city district. Cgnat would be better because the server would see ipv4 of the ISP. I don't know, is there a way to not show my ipv6 and fall back on cgnat address because that looks much more secure in terms of not getting doxed and ad tracked.

I assume a vpn, ssh tunnel, wireguard or any other type of proxy would hide your residential ip.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#39
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

Problem with CGNAT is the costs involved in bookkeeping for law enforcement. Where an IPv4 solution for your clients only needs change-logging on IPbinding-to-client level, the CG-NAT requires you as an ISP to log every outgoing IPv4/port combination with timestamp to client mapping. Which requires A LOT more storage and much more expensive equipment. Going rate per IPv4 is up to $40 nowadays, selling of your v4 bloc…

[deleted]

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#40
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

> WThe nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. No issues? So, how are people supposed to be able to access your machine then?

Why should I want people to be accessing my personal desktop/laptop/tablet?
Post reply on HN