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

121–130 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#121

Post by drmpeg »

southerntofu wrote: post #95
nsizx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if that organisation didn't have a use for those addresses... I don't see what the big deal is.

That organization did not own those addresses. In the most generous interpretation of the situation, they were administrative custodians to the good usage of those addresses. Reselling them to a for-profit company was definitely not what was intended by anyone and directly contradicts their mission as custodians. Those addresses were that of the global radioamateur community and no one else's. That's why i made a com…

Amateur radio still has 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Not exactly a shortage.

Also, they are giving back to the community. The largest grant so far was $1,620,000 to save a radio telescope for the MIT Amateur Radio club.

https://www.ampr.org/grants/

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#122

Post by littlecranky67 »

globular-toast wrote: post #119
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…

That makes me realise there is an incentive for ISPs to hold out on supporting IPv6. If IPv6 was widely supported then their IPv4 blocks would be worthless. I wonder how many will be holding out on deploying IPv6 until they can offload their still-valuable IPv4 addresses.

IPv6 adoption is just sad. Sharing an anectode: Back in 2002, I was using a 56k modem on a linux box 24/7 from home with a dialup flatrate. Being an avid IRCnet user, I setup an IPv6 tunnel with a tunnel broker (I think it was Hurricane Electric - it was before Aiccu was a thing) and connected to the IPv6 IRCnet servers. There was once a channel #uptime which was a contest: On start of contest, everybody in channel got voice - and the person to last hold voice would win (you lose voice when your TCP connection disconnects). Even so I had a forced disconnect every 24h, amongst over 100 users (mostly Servers, Bouncers, Universities etc.) I ranked 6th place in the end (after couple of weeks), because my ipv4 dialup was reconnecting fast enough to receive the buffered ipv6 tunnel pakets from the broker. Today I have no more IPv6 since SIXXS shut its doors a couple of years back, and my provider (o2/Telefonica) hasn't roled it out to me yet.

Looking back those 19 years, the availability and state of IPv6 has worsened for me - even though IPv4 shortage was known back then.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#123

Post by nsizx »

southerntofu wrote: post #99
nsizx wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume Amazon came to them and offered the money and they accepted. I don't see anything shady about that. How do you sell something "openly"? Via an auction website? Is that standard procedure for everything these people sell?

Standard Internet procedures for IP addresses is apply to your Regional Internet Registry for addresses, and the panel decides who will make best use of them (usually smaller/newer providers are prioritized). You only pay administrative/membership fees for the addresses because IP addresses are technical bits not property... everyone operates addresses but nobody owns them. That people sell food and houses is disconc…

The fact that you find private property "disconcerting" is enough to know this conversation is not going to go anywhere.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#124

Post by toxik »

xvilka wrote: post #117
wu_187 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in the cloud hosting industry for a decade and a half. The entire time, we were warned about the IPv4 shortage and how we needed to switch to IPv6 soon(tm). Well, things haven't changed. Everyone is dragging their feet on IPv6 adoption from hosting providers, ISPs, hardware manufacturers, and software developers. I predicted this years ago and always said that it would require a government mandate to move…

Some countries did exactly that, China for example. Most of the infrastructure, ISP networks, even user applications here is now IPv6 or ought to be in a few years [1]. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/26/china_single_stack_ip...

To be fair, this is exactly the type of thing you’d expect China to be good at, unilateral decision making.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#125

Post by IntelMiner »

philderbeast wrote: post #76
endre wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that will just lead to a whole lot of "we dont have that information" or alternativly, "all of these 10000 people used that, have fun!"

The "I'm Spartacus!" of torrenting

(For those who haven't heard the reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCmyiljKo0#t=0m40s )

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#126

Post by tkiolp4 »

audron wrote: post #106
laurent92 wrote: post #103

Another huge problem is that companies are handling out IPv6 by bulks of /128 subnets per machine, and many experts encourage “one IP per service on the machine”, adding “it’s good for security since it’s harder to scan all ports of all subnet IPs. So at that pace, I still wonder how IPv6 will not run out of IP as quickly as IPv4. One IP per server should be the norm.

Even if you reduce it down to /48 subnets you have 281,474,976,710,656 of these, ~65k times more than the entire IPv4 space, your usual assignment to a machine is a /64 which are about 4.2 billion times the amount of the IPv4 address space, about 18 quintillion. Thats enough addresses to give every one of the 8 billion humans on this planet, two billion /64 subnets. Which I'd say should be enough for the moment.

> 65k times more than the entire IPv4 space

Last week I was thinking about a system to automatically cut my hair the way I exactly want (precision up to the millimeter and per hair). So, one way would be by using cheap microrobots*. The

On average we have around 100K hairs on our heads. Let’s say you buy 100K microrobots to cut your hair. Each of these microrobots could have their own ipv6 (because, why not) so that you can control them via your phone. So, suddenly you have there one person using 100K ipv6 addresses.

So, whenever people say “ipv6 should be enough for now”, I always think “well, it depends on how they are used!”

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#127

Post by throwaway3b03 »

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...

I used to have that. Then all residential customers were put under a CGN, and you can ask for a dedicated, public IP, free of charge. I imagine 99.9% of users can't tell the difference so the ISP saved a lot of IP space, while customers are just as happy.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#128

Post by [deleted] »

southerntofu wrote: post #100
nsizx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if that organisation didn't have a use for those addresses... I don't see what the big deal is.

I have 127.0.0.0/8 for sale! Give me 100 million euros and it's all yours! What do you mean some people are actually using those addresses and i don't own them? RFC makes it very clear local link means my own machine and i pretty much own my own machine, thank you. Do you see how ridiculous is this situation now?

[deleted]

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#129

Post by pezezin »

john2010 wrote: post #68
skuhn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My company owns a /16 and everybody gets an static address for each device, so I currently "own" two global IPv4 addresses. But everything is firewalled to hell and we need to connect through a proxy, so what's the point?

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#130

Post by liveoneggs »

korethr wrote: 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?

ietf and friends could have made ipv6 only address the shortage but decided to change a bunch of other stuff too
Post reply on HN