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

191–200 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#191

Post by southerntofu »

drmpeg wrote: post #121
southerntofu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Not exactly a shortage, no. But giving away an entire range without giving ample time (think months/years) for network operators to comply is a bit harsh.

Thanks for the link to their grants. It's good to see they're doing something useful with the money and it's not a case of outright corruption. Although one could argue a club from one of the biggest colleges in the global north may have more suited avenues for funding, i'm glad to see smaller projects in there as well.

To be fair, if the goal was to raise money for the community, would it not have been wiser to rent the IP space, or to setup a proper charitable auction? The IPv4 addresses are bound to go up in value in the coming years, now that major RIRs have given away all the remaining blocks, so that might have brought more revenue.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#192

Post by roody15 »

In my experience working IT at some public universities and some private education facilities there is a negative incentive for adopting IPV6. Often in these environments bandwidth use it up even on the LAN side and dual stack IPv6 simply causes unnecessary traffic that impacts negatively network performance. This was not the case in my experience 7-10 years ago.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#193

Post by southerntofu »

nsizx wrote: post #123
southerntofu wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because i don't hold your religious beliefs in regards to private property doesn't mean we can't have a conversation. Of course, if the entire conversation revolves around the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of private property, we'll wander away from the topic that big tech multinationals are eating away the Internet commons. Specifically from Amazon, i'm also referring to the .amazon TLD case.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#194

Post by southerntofu »

nsizx wrote: post #162
netr0ute wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true though. If you're a tier 1 network then you can advertise whatever you want, and if they cut you off on that advertised address, then you can cut your peer's address off. And, if you're big enough, the peers can't just disconnect from you altogether or they themselves would lose connections to other peers. This is why BGP and the other routing protocols are so cool; you can get control of the internet if…

That's like saying that private property is worthless because the state can take it from you by force. Technically that's correct, but if that generally doesn't happen then it's not something we have to worry about.

> if that generally doesn't happen

That's a big if. I don't know where you're from, but here in France the State expropriating smaller landowners in order to achieve huge private-public partnerships (i.e. siphoning off public money right into the pockets of private companies, with little if any benefits for society) is common practice: see for example the ZAD in Notre dame des Landes for an example of popular outcry/resistance, or the expropriations and mafia-like intimidation/aggression for the "Grand Stade de Lyon".

Of course, if you're a big landowner and/or close to the circles of power, you have nothing to worry about.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#195

Post by southerntofu »

nsizx wrote: post #159
netr0ute wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just got wooooshed.

I know it was a joke, but according to his other comments he seems to think IP addresses cannot be owned because they are nothing but numbers.

> IP addresses cannot be owned

It is my understanding that IP addresses are not owned, indeed. Please correct if wrong.

There are historical IP space who governance is not clear, but for most IP space it's de facto "owned" by RIRs who assign some ranges to their members. According to RIPE assignment policy:

> Assignment of this IP space is valid as long as the criteria for the original assignment are met and only for the duration of the service agreement between yourself and us. We have the right to reassign the address space to another user upon termination of this agreement or an agreed period thereafter.

Internet "ownership" of resources is, or at least was, in my understanding a form of usage-based ownership (as defined by anarchist thinkers). You operate some resources and your ownership is based on that need precisely, despite having to pay some administrative fees (for domain names and IP addresses) to ensure public service infrastructure is maintained properly. Until recently, domain names and IP ranges were not subject to the "laws" of offer and demand, but rather to a first-come-first-served basis. But apart from historical actors (read governments and military industrial complex) who benefit from special rules in order to maintain backwards-compatibility forever, IP space is managed communally through RIRs and no entity exactly owns IP addresses, at least in a private-property based understanding of ownership.

Of course, my claiming to sell 127.* was a joke :)

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#197

Post by southerntofu »

nsizx wrote: post #134
southerntofu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You don't have that for sale, because you don't own it, and if you try to announce it you will get disconnected from all your peers and will have to close shop.

Not that i disagree with your point, but you'd be surprised - if you're not familiar with the ISP world - the crazy routes some operators announce sometimes.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#198

Post by bob1029 »

mwcampbell wrote: post #158

I wish that instead of buying more IPv4 blocks, AWS would drastically lower the price of NAT gateways, then charge extra for EC2 instances and Fargate tasks with public IPs, to make it a no-brainer to stop wasting public IPs. As it stands, it's cheaper to waste public IPs than to use NAT gateways. Addendum: I also wish I could volunteer to be switched over to CGNAT for my personal IPv4 traffic. This discussion got me…

I've been making us use a NAT gateway for all of our EC2 instances since the dawn of time. Only those that need to be directly touched on specific ports get dedicated IPv4. I can count all of our public IPv4 addresses on 1 hand, and that includes a static comcast address for a branch office.

Using auto-assigned IPv4 should not be default, IMO. If I just did what amazon wanted me to without thinking, we would be consuming 5-6x more IPv4 addresses than we otherwise need to.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#199

Post by mwcampbell »

bob1029 wrote: post #198
mwcampbell wrote: post #158

I wish that instead of buying more IPv4 blocks, AWS would drastically lower the price of NAT gateways, then charge extra for EC2 instances and Fargate tasks with public IPs, to make it a no-brainer to stop wasting public IPs. As it stands, it's cheaper to waste public IPs than to use NAT gateways. Addendum: I also wish I could volunteer to be switched over to CGNAT for my personal IPv4 traffic. This discussion got me…

I've been making us use a NAT gateway for all of our EC2 instances since the dawn of time. Only those that need to be directly touched on specific ports get dedicated IPv4. I can count all of our public IPv4 addresses on 1 hand, and that includes a static comcast address for a branch office. Using auto-assigned IPv4 should not be default, IMO. If I just did what amazon wanted me to without thinking, we would be consu…

Do you have any Internet-facing load balancers? IIUC, each AWS application load balancer gets a couple of public IPv4 addresses. So I guess if you have a single ALB and a couple of NAT gateways (in two availability zones), you could still end up with a total of 5 public IPv4 addresses.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#200

Post by bob1029 »

techsupporter wrote: post #30

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/

> Hetzner just added a staggering $19/address setup fee and a soon doubling of prices

This is what we need to encourage IPv6 adoption and conservation of existing digital resources.

Post reply on HN