Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, ISPs shouldn't force users behind NATs.
Incorrect. ISPs should use NAT. Users should pay for their own address if they desire.
I'd rather the ISP pushed for IPv6.
Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
101–110 of 208 posts
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean they are using IP's as they were originally designed? Those people probably have NO conflicts or problems with things like video conferencing, VPN's, etc. NAT is a cludge, not a security feature.
I can't recall the last time that NAT caused me any problems. Is it still an issue these days?
Even if its a mature cludge, its still a cludge.
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#103Interesting work, but IMHO anything that extends the life of IPv4 does active harm. I'd prefer if these addresses stay out of the pool so scarcity increases and forces people to upgrade. IPv4 is fundamentally too small, period. There are already more people and computers on Earth than possible IPv4 addresses even if it were perfectly optimally used. It leads us further down a path in which everything is behind increa…
The total population I don't find to be a very strong argument, because all that matters is the population of people who desire to communicate with my service. If people not able to communicate with my service also don't want to communicate with my service and I don't see a need for them to communicate with my service, why do we both need the same protocols?
Something I have observed is that sites that tend to attract DDoS attacks tend not to use IPv6 (note that reddit and HN do not have AAAA records, though I don't know the actual reason for this). I've even seen the heavily attacked sites that I know are using paid Cloudflare or Sucuri services to not have AAAA records, and I wonder if that's a decision or recommendation from the service providers. So, elimination of IPv4 may mean that sites can more easily and cheaply be knocked off the Internet.
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean they are using IP's as they were originally designed? Those people probably have NO conflicts or problems with things like video conferencing, VPN's, etc. NAT is a cludge, not a security feature.
I can't recall the last time that NAT caused me any problems. Is it still an issue these days?
IIUC, things like WebRTC have STUN & TURN servers solely to get around NAT.
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#105US Department of Defense has 14 /8 blocks. You'd have to wonder what they do with that large number of public IPs. Sure, some companies have large blocks but that's nothing compared to that.
Ask them [1] and report back.
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#106About 10 years ago, IBM used to use the 9.0.0.0/8 space in basically exactly the same way as one would use 10.0.0.0/8, for internal-only networking. Each workstation got its own 9.x.x.x IP, but it wasn't routable from outside. I hope they stopped doing that, but I doubt it.
HP did the same for 15.0.0.0/8 and 16.0.0.0/8 until the HP/HPE split at which point I think they couldn't figure out who should get the address space. As 2 x /8 is pretty valuable, they sold off chunks of it and are presumably still doing so.
Ironically, having such addresses was sort of useful when companies got acquired and teams got shifted around. Starting to use an acquired company's network that was never designed with "what if we get acquired and have to play nice with others" in mind causes all sorts of routing pain.
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
During a shortage, push comes to shove.
> "shouldn't"s are not very useful during shortages. There is an important difference between "it might be necessary to put them behind NATs" and " shouldn't they be on NATs?".
Hence the word "many." It's interesting because econ deniers are common at university, haha.
In any case, /16 should be enough room to prioritize.
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#108US Department of Defense has 14 /8 blocks. You'd have to wonder what they do with that large number of public IPs. Sure, some companies have large blocks but that's nothing compared to that.
Ask them [1] and report back. [1]: https://open.defense.gov/transparency/foia.aspx
The actual page to request is foia.gov: https://www.foia.gov/request/agency-component/4fce7e7d-3b32-...
Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?
#109US Department of Defense has 14 /8 blocks. You'd have to wonder what they do with that large number of public IPs. Sure, some companies have large blocks but that's nothing compared to that.
The DoD is also larger than any company.