211–220 of 283 posts
Who the heck has a couple /12s and a /13 just lying around unused? And there are even some earlier pickups of two /10s: 252.0.0.0/10 and 44.192.0.0/10. Wow.
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.
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 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In designing ZeroTier I put a ton of effort into creating a secure P2P layer with addresses that are only 40 bits long. This effort continues with new solutions being worked on to maintain security while allowing more openness and federation. It would have been much easier to use long addresses that are long hashes of keys. Having only 40 bits means we need two layers of defense in depth to prevent intentional collis…
ZeroTier has a flat address space governed by a single algorithm. The Internet is a loose hierarchy of independently-managed networks. These problems have quite different addressing requirements. Analogy: ZeroTier is to https://plus.codes/ as IPv6 is to mailing addresses. A mailing address is pretty long, but you can use its structure to route the mail efficiently.
Adding 16 or 32 more bits to IPv4 would have been trivial. The existing IPv4 address space becomes 0.0.n.n.n.n or perhaps 0.n.n.n.n.0 if you wanted to give every existing IP 256 addresses to assign while also multiplying the IP space by 256.
Easy, easy, easy.
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?
Of course that is how it will end. Noone thinks that this is a bad idea, to only allow customers of those three to host a service, because that is the current mindset. When they own all the v4 ips, we will have no choice but to hot on their infra or not host at all. At that time, someone might think that IPv6 with all its faults might have been a good idea after all, but then it will be too late, since "v4 seems to w…
... there won't be any value in them any more.
if the only folks left who can use IPv4 are the hosting providers ("big three" or not), then nobody will be using using IPv4 to contact all the hosted services.
large swaths of users have IPv6 available to them. if there starts being some inconvenience to not having 6, we can be sure adoption will pick up even faster.
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.
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?
Public auctions (which they didn't use) are currently in the $45-50 per IP ballpark. At that price it's $247.5 million worth of IPs. At auction the larger networks tend to go for less money per IP since there is a smaller market of people who want and can buy them (you have to be approved by ARIN/RIPE/etc. for the allocation size), which drives the price down.
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…
IPv6 makes addressing easy and addresses free. Let's not keep NAT alive.
On top of that, there's a whole lot of software that either doesn't support v6, or has major problems.
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…
Regarding NAT gateway pricing (~ $30/month or so iirc) we can use a micro (~ $10/month) Linux instance, it's quite literally about 2 commands (sysctl enable ip forwarding and a masquerade iptables command) or a short script to set it up.
I wonder if it would be feasible, when using a stripped-down container host OS like Bottlerocket, to configure one container host instance per availability zone to also do NAT. Note that I'm assuming a setup where the containers are running in ECS tasks that use the awsvpc network mode (i.e. each task has its own VPC network interface and private IP address), so security groups can be fine-grained. So even the tasks running on container hosts that do NAT would need the NAT.