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

AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#61

Post by endre »

minimaster wrote: post #49
JPDeckers wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Disclaimer: I work with this stuff and might be a little biased to certain vendor solutions. A good CGNAT implementations have support for static blocks: the subscriber always ends up a a specific ipnumber+portblock combination. (Each subscriber is assigned a specific number of exit ports and this all just logged once during startup so you always know where each subscriber ends up). Should they run out of their assig…

And law enforcement inquiries barely contain source port information, or precise time. Most of then go like: who had this IP in $this-two-weeks-window. No source port, no destination IP/port.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#62

Post by viraptor »

anthropodie wrote: post #6

IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6. Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.

The funny thing is social media and streaming is already there:

    facebook.com has IPv6 address 2a03:2880:f119:8083:face:b00c:0:25de
    instagram.com has IPv6 address 2406:da00:ff00::23ae:4dc1
    snapchat.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:4802:36::15
    netflix.com has IPv6 address 2600:1f14:62a:de82:822d:a423:9e4c:da8d
    youtube.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:4006:810::200e
The holdouts are somewhere else. Imagine if cloudflare and cloudfront defaulted to enabling ipv6 - I expect the jump in worldwide ipv6 traffic would be massive. On the other hand the missing services are very tech oriented:

    github.com has no AAAA record
Once traffic can default to ipv6, we'll see ipv4 slowly dying, but the defaults really matter.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#63

Post by phatfish »

dehrmann wrote: post #41
Ambroos wrote: 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've had a static ipv4 address on a home internet connection for almost 10 years, now. They're out there...

Yup, ISPs in countries that got a nice big block if addresses in the early days can still manage this. I have a cable connection that was originally provided by NTL (now Virgin Media). My IPv4 address changes about once a year now as they do upgrades/maintenance. It used to change even less.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#64

Post by _Algernon_ »

JPDeckers wrote: post #17
Ambroos wrote: 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…

Anything that makes mass surveillance more expensive is a plus in my book.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#65

Post by viraptor »

axaxs wrote: post #33
selectodude wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Alternative view - those addresses should not be "returned". They're owned. I hope hoarders will get blocks as large as they can so that we experience real shortage and start seeing the first ipv6-only services.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#66

Post by cm2187 »

skuhn wrote: post #22
lashloch wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in our lifetimes. you don't think ipv6 will overtake ipv4 in the next 50-odd years? think about the year 1971 and what was thought possible then

Overtake: yes. The ability to launch a public-facing, commercial service and pretend like IPv4 never existed and you don't have to worry about it at all? Probably not within our lifetimes.

I am not sure about that. When IPv6 support nears 95%, the pressure will be on those few ISPs to give access to those areas inaccessible from v4. Think of all these websites that need to be cheap and are happy enough with reaching 95% of the audience: blogs, small businesses, anything education related, etc. That should help going from 95 to 100.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#68

Post by john2010 »

skuhn wrote: post #43
anthropodie wrote: post #6

IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6. Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.

I actually think that what will really drive IPv6 adoption is if the price of IPv4 space continues its upward trajectory unabated. The price has about doubled at auction in the last year. How are those two things related? 1. There are a ton of owners sitting on inefficiently used IP space. Any company (not doing cloud hosting or network transit) that's holding a /8 is almost certainly using it very inefficiently, but…

I know few universities that still use static ipv4 for computer pools. The admins claim easy for us to monitor for misuse.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#69

Post by fulafel »

anthropodie wrote: post #6

IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6. Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.

I think the "switch" mental model is misleading. IPv6 has already happened, and most users don't notice it since they aren't in the habit of looking at network interface diagnostics on their device. See eg sibling comment about instagram, netflix, facebook etc. v4 NAT will remain in use concurrently and services will remain available over v4 for consumer facing things for a long time.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#70

Post by jgrahamc »

viraptor wrote: post #62
anthropodie wrote: post #6

IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6. Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.

The funny thing is social media and streaming is already there: facebook.com has IPv6 address 2a03:2880:f119:8083:face:b00c:0:25de instagram.com has IPv6 address 2406:da00:ff00::23ae:4dc1 snapchat.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:4802:36::15 netflix.com has IPv6 address 2600:1f14:62a:de82:822d:a423:9e4c:da8d youtube.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:4006:810::200e The holdouts are somewhere else. Imagine if cloudflare and…

We do default IPv6 on. https://blog.cloudflare.com/always-on-ipv6/

And the chart in that blog shows the dent we made.

Post reply on HN