Live data from Hacker News

Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

blog.benjojo.co.uk

131–140 of 208 posts

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#131
post #98

US 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.

How does this scale to other military globally. Does anyone else have an /8 block?

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#132
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that be relevant here (or sibling comment about Apple)? Last I checked except for 9.9.9.0/24 (to quad9) IBM is indeed the assignee for 9.0.0.0/8 from back in 1992. Apple got 17.0.0.0/8 back in 1990. Back in the day a lot of big entities got whole /8 blocks (including of course a lot of the USG but private corps as well). Many of them are still around and fully active, while others are defunct (Halliburton h…

> Why would that be relevant here Because it shows how wasteful these companies operate with resources others are in need of.

It's irrelevant. Even if the authority existed to reclaim all the /8s handed out to private companies (it doesn't) you'd kick the can down the road a few years at best. Then we'd be right back in the same boat.

There are only ~4 billion IPv4 addresses. There are more than that many humans alive, most of whom have or will have a smartphone. So we're already short on addresses without considering network equipment, servers, IoT, or anything else.

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#133
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, the addresses are too damn long and unwieldy to really be used; and second, even most people reading this, tech people in a tech forum, struggle to really grasp the inane IPv6 address shortening rules! Ever heard of DNS?

I don't know about everyone else, but when I want to go to Hacker News I go to https://209.216.230.240 and ignore the security warnings of mismatched name. Way easier to remember than news.ycombinator.com, its five fewer characters!

I am a little ashamed to admit this, but I can't remember the URL for Hacker News and always have to search for it in Google if I am on a device that doesn't have it bookmarked. Somehow I still remember other long URL's like http://altavista.digital.com though.

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#134

Artificial scarcity is best scarcity. Certain popular western european ISP still gives IPv4s cheaper than IPv6s (still a high price, though).

In the US it's hard for many home users to get static allocations of IPv6 but you can easily get an IPv4 block for $10/month or whatever. So same issue, if you need IPv6 static then you have to go to very expensive service tiers given the "shortage" of ipv6. Reality is I think IPv6 is just a pain up and down to deal with and they haven't sorted out all the tooling to deal with it for static IPs.

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#135

About 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.

IBM owned 9/8 so this is a legitimate use of address space. All hosts should have globally unique addresses, even if you want to use NAT to hide various things. IBM does multiple acquisitions per year. Imagine merging two corporate networks that both use 10/8; it's a nightmare.

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#137
post #135

About 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.

IBM owned 9/8 so this is a legitimate use of address space. All hosts should have globally unique addresses, even if you want to use NAT to hide various things. IBM does multiple acquisitions per year. Imagine merging two corporate networks that both use 10/8; it's a nightmare.

The acquisition's IPs might not conflict with IBMs, but surely they conflict with those of the other acquisitions? Is there any benefit after the first acquisition?

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#138

I don't understand why was the next version of IP not just identical to IPv4 but with more bits in address space? Were they trying to do too many things at once in the 90's?

It was fixing (or trying to) issues with the v4 spec that were now very apparent.

For example, ipv4 technically has a link-local address space but barely anything will use it and even less will successfully. Many other 80/90s protocols did much better at that (IPX being an example) as well as having distributed name and service locators and such.

IPv6 local networks of IoT devices or whatever can pretty much automagically start communicating with zero configuration to anything else locally. No DHCP or whatever required.

The world didn't stand still between v4 and v6, it'd be weird if the protocol did.

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#139
post #117
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applied in October last year, and at that time the waiting list was zero days, so I received our /24 instantaneously. Some nice data on the prices of IPv4 addresses: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

Should change to a montly fee. Then people would get rid of the ones not used.

> Should change to a montly fee. Then people would get rid of the ones not used.

There is a fee. Your EUR 1,400 annual fee.

For that money you get one IPv4 and one IPv6 (IPv4 subject to availability, obvs!).

Above that they charge per resource assignment, 50EUR per annum per resource assignment ( defined as: "IPv4 and IPv6 PI assignments; Anycast assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments; and Legacy IPv4 resource registrations through a sponsoring LIR. AS Numbers are excluded from this charge")

And yes, I think the 50EUR should be put on a ladder scale so hoarders get charged exponentially more. ;-)

Re: Who is squatting IPv4 addresses?

#140
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM owned 9/8 so this is a legitimate use of address space. All hosts should have globally unique addresses, even if you want to use NAT to hide various things. IBM does multiple acquisitions per year. Imagine merging two corporate networks that both use 10/8; it's a nightmare.

The acquisition's IPs might not conflict with IBMs, but surely they conflict with those of the other acquisitions? Is there any benefit after the first acquisition?

My point is that if every company uses real IPs then you can merge networks with no conflicts. 10/8 is fine for home use but not for enterprise networks.
Post reply on HN