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

111–120 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#111

Post by wu_187 »

tolien wrote: post #104
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the ipv6 address scary because IP geolocation gives that in the same city district. Cgnat would be better because the server would see ipv4 of the ISP. I don't know, is there a way to not show my ipv6 and fall back on cgnat address because that looks much more secure in terms of not getting doxed and ad tracked.

That’s not inherent to IPv6 though, your ISP chose to be more specific in the location data for those addresses. If it’s sufficiently detailed as to “dox” you, maybe ask them not to do that?

Both AT&T and Comcast do this with IPv4 as well.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#112

Post by corty »

korethr wrote: post #14
anthropodie wrote: post #6

IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6. Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.

Years ago, when I perhaps more naively believed in the benevolence of Google, and that wisdom of the Elder True Nerds who worked there would lead us to The Future, I might have applauded them throwing their weight around doing something like that. Possibly with a condescending paternalistic attitude like, "dragging the unwashed masses kicking and screaming into the the future they're too stupid to realize just yet th…

Control is one argument, but I'd go with the money argument:

All the big cloud providers like Google and AWS as well as the small ones like Hetzner do have an incentive to keep IPv4 going as long as possible. They can charge a premium for things IPv4 "because addresses are scarce". Charging a premium means more profit margin.

At the same time, they do not need to invest in more than lip service for IPv6 support in their offerings: No cloud provider has any comprehensive IPv6 offering, most services don't do IPv6. The edge ones maybe do, but there are always sharp edges, missing docs and general pain, pushing everyone back to IPv4 where the profits are.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#113

Post by wu_187 »

anthropodie wrote: post #6

IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6. Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.

This. I honestly think the FCC will have to mandate it's adoption and give a hard date for the termination of IPv4 for it to work. Both will need to occur.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#114

Post by tedk-42 »

In the consumer space this doesn't matter much. Most internet users at home could have their IPv4 address removed and only provided an IPv6 one.

Mobile internet is commonly served only by IPv6.

It's the hosting/server space where IPv4 matters and will probably be like this for the next 20 years. This will be harder than the python 2 -> 3 migration. We'll continue to come close to running out of IPv4 addresses but we won't ever ween off them completely in the server space.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#116

Post by tolien »

wu_187 wrote: post #111
tolien wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not inherent to IPv6 though, your ISP chose to be more specific in the location data for those addresses. If it’s sufficiently detailed as to “dox” you, maybe ask them not to do that?

Both AT&T and Comcast do this with IPv4 as well.

Yeah, NTL/Virgin Media in the UK do the same in that their IPs geolocate to where the node/head end is. In a city, it's not going to be specific enough to uniquely identify you but it's still weird seeing ads that aren't that far away.

On the other hand, the IPv4/v6 addresses on my A&A connection geolocate to either London or Bracknell (where their office is), about 400 miles away. I get a lot of pointless ads for things in Surrey that I have no intention of visiting.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#117

Post by xvilka »

wu_187 wrote: post #110
korethr wrote: post #2

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?

I've worked in the cloud hosting industry for a decade and a half. The entire time, we were warned about the IPv4 shortage and how we needed to switch to IPv6 soon(tm). Well, things haven't changed. Everyone is dragging their feet on IPv6 adoption from hosting providers, ISPs, hardware manufacturers, and software developers. I predicted this years ago and always said that it would require a government mandate to move…

Some countries did exactly that, China for example. Most of the infrastructure, ISP networks, even user applications here is now IPv6 or ought to be in a few years [1].

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/26/china_single_stack_ip...

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#118

Post by nousermane »

wu_187 wrote: post #110
korethr wrote: post #2

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?

I've worked in the cloud hosting industry for a decade and a half. The entire time, we were warned about the IPv4 shortage and how we needed to switch to IPv6 soon(tm). Well, things haven't changed. Everyone is dragging their feet on IPv6 adoption from hosting providers, ISPs, hardware manufacturers, and software developers. I predicted this years ago and always said that it would require a government mandate to move…

NAT is ramping up on client side. Many home-internet connections are now NATted twice - in CPE, then again in CGN.

On the server side, in contrast, NAT is winding down. 15 years ago, it was common to have either DMZ-style NAT, or on AWS you had to have NAT (they call it EIP). Nowadays, having a CDN or could-native load-balancer in front of your server is increasingly common. And behind those, that server just don't need a public IP (maybe only a shared outboud NAT for OS updates). That is - if you have a server at all (and not moved to lambda, S3, etc...)

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#119

Post by globular-toast »

Ambroos wrote: post #3
korethr wrote: post #2

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?

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

That makes me realise there is an incentive for ISPs to hold out on supporting IPv6. If IPv6 was widely supported then their IPv4 blocks would be worthless. I wonder how many will be holding out on deploying IPv6 until they can offload their still-valuable IPv4 addresses.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#120

Post by blntechie »

einpoklum wrote: post #35
Ambroos wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

> WThe nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. No issues? So, how are people supposed to be able to access your machine then?

With ZeroTier, TailScale etc. just creating a personal network of your own should help solve the issue I guess.
Post reply on HN