Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

arin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#111

Post by 300bps »

tene wrote: post #109
300bps wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just knew someone was going to totally change the argument. The argument I was replying to was that they use 16.7MM addresses. I proved that there is no way they use 16.7MM addresses. So either you didn't read the original argument, or you just like to argue so you are now changing the argument. In either case, I'll bite. Nobody is asking Ford to be altruistic about this. Right now their /8 has some value. They hav…

> > > They are using 16,777,214 IP addresses? > > No, they are using their block and their network strategy is predicated upon having an essentially infinite set of IP addresses available. > I just knew someone was going to totally change the argument. The argument I was replying to was that they use 16.7MM addresses. I proved that there is no way they use 16.7MM addresses. No, the argument you were replying to was t…

You're arguing that masklinn intended to say something he didn't say. I argue that he meant exactly what he said. He said they're using their blocks. You're interpreting blocks as "sub-blocks" but I disagree. masklinn also said in supporting his position:

Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable

Really? If you're anything resembling a network engineer, surely you see how ridiculous this is? And how about this other thing he said:

Please note that not only can there be multiple IPs per employee, there are also IPs assigned to services and servers.

Again, really? Multiple public IPs per employee? That's just poppycock. He was wrong, I called him out on it and you can try to re-interpret what he said all you like but the fact is he is just plain wrong. They're not using 16.7MM addresses, they're probably not even using 10% of 16.7MM addresses and assuming that every /8 holder broke their netblocks up in the least flexible and most wasteful way possible is nothing more than an assumption on your part.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#112

Post by tene »

300bps wrote: post #111
tene wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > > They are using 16,777,214 IP addresses? > > No, they are using their block and their network strategy is predicated upon having an essentially infinite set of IP addresses available. > I just knew someone was going to totally change the argument. The argument I was replying to was that they use 16.7MM addresses. I proved that there is no way they use 16.7MM addresses. No, the argument you were replying to was t…

You're arguing that masklinn intended to say something he didn't say. I argue that he meant exactly what he said. He said they're using their blocks. You're interpreting blocks as "sub-blocks" but I disagree. masklinn also said in supporting his position: Some of those companies uses their blocks to make every machine in their network globally routable Really? If you're anything resembling a network engineer, surely…

Hmm. Fair enough. That's a very reasonable interpretation.

You're right, I was being rather generous in my interpretation, and I don't actually know his intent.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#113

Post by gpvos »

pyre wrote: post #18
mfincham wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Returning them would only delay the inevitable by a matter of months. Deploy IPv6 today, it ain't hard.

How would end-user software deal with an IPv6 address though? Surely some of it is IPv6 capable already, but I would imagine that a lot of it makes assumptions about IPv4. If the OS were operating on a IPv6 network, would that software function correctly as long as the addresses were IPv4-compatible (i.e. within the IPv4 range, and not in IPv6 notation)?

We had some software that stored IP addresses in a field in a ':'-separated text line; luckily, the files were quite transient, so we could just change the separator into a semicolon and be done with it.

Elsewhere, the IP addresses were used as part of a file name on Windows; we replaced all colons in the IPv6 address with '!' to fix that.

There's bound to be lots of old software with similar problems around.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#114

Post by tjgq »

0x0 wrote: post #88
tjgq wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once in a while, you'll get data that happens to look like your IP address, and you'll find that you can't send that precise sequence of bits in a packet ever because it'll get mangled by the NAT How so? Those bits should only matter to the NAT logic if they are found in their expected position in the IP header, not in the payload portion of the datagram.

Some cheap NAT devices rewrites stuff that "looks like" the internal IP addresses inside the TCP payload, in a hackish attempt to "fix" things like FTP and other protocols that send addresses in the payload. A really stupid and dangerous way to do things, but it's been known to happen.

Crazy. Has that been observed in carrier-grade NAT boxes, though? Or only in el-cheapo residential devices? It seems an incredible risk to the carriers to do things that way.

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#115

Post by teddyh »

teddyh wrote: post #45

Meanwhile, in Europe, RIPE ran out of IPv4 a year ago[1], and people have been happily implementing IPv6 ever since. In Sweden, there is a government directive[2] that all state infrastructure should implement IPv6 and DNSSEC by this year (2013) at the latest. 1) https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion 2) http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/15234/a/177127

Found an english version of the directive (PDF):

http://www.government.se/content/1/c6/18/19/14/70f489cb.pdf

Page 40, Actions, first paragraph: “In addition, all authorities should make use of DNSSEC and be reachable with IPv6 by 2013.”

Re: We're about to hit phase 3 of ARIN IPV4 rationing

#116

Post by mfincham »

duskwuff wrote: post #36
mfincham wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the policies of the RIR (Regional Internet Registry) in the region where the IPs are from. That said, if you're willing to ignore the RIR's policies (which a lot of people do) you can usually "black market" trade IP addresses, so long as you can convince your upstreams to accept them (which they usually will).

Many of the legacy allocations were made before RIRs existed, so no policies really apply.

Sure, but when you want to update the WHOIS / reverse DNS or whatever you have to convince an RIR. If you don't care then I guess that's fine.
Post reply on HN