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

IP Addresses Through 2025

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 158 posts

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#121

Post by SchemaLoad »

snowwrestler wrote: post #24

I pay close attention to IPv4 addresses for outgoing emails. At work we use several email services and pay for a dedicated IP(v4) at each. And when we provision a new service, we expect our new IP address to be “clean,” by which I mean it is ideally not found on any email reputation list. For websites and services I don’t care. Some hosting platforms publish via CNAME, and some via A and AAAA records. Most seem to us…

In the future we will have v6 only clients making v4 almost worthless since not all users will be able to connect to it.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#123

Post by SchemaLoad »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #38

I'm interested in any new successful startups going full IPV6 from the beginning. Once we cross that bridge, where your internal IPV4 knowledge is equivalent to token ring knowledge, there's nothing else to watch.

One interesting development is the Matter standard for controlling smart home devices is v6 only. Every lightbulb, switch, sensor etc gets a v6 address and can be individually communicated to without having a manufacturers hub translating in the middle.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#124

Post by dlcarrier »

immibis wrote: post #83
dlcarrier wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with a background in electronics who doesn't manage any internet-connected equipment but has multiple embedded devices connected to a WAN, I'm glad that IPv4 still seems to have a bit of life left in it. When IPv6 was developed, over 30 years ago, connecting everything to the internet seemed like a great idea. I know that IPv6 can be made secure, but I don't have the background or research time to learn ho…

For some background why IoT products will stop being insecure: if you sell one in the EU, you're liable for all the damage your botnet causes. Luckily, common EU home routers have firewalls, even for IPv6. And it's so much easier to punch holes on purpose! Instead of messing with port forwarding and internal and external IP addresses, you can just say "this device is a server, please allow traffic on port 80 and 443,…

I don't see how the logistics for that would work. Even when you know what devices are part of a botnet, which itself is no easy task, each device in a botnet is only doing cents worth of damage, and mostly to the target, but product liability only applies to the owner of the product.

Also, everyone I know that lives in Europe (although most of them not within EU countries) imports their IoT controllers directly from China or the US, because there is very little available from manufacturers in Europe.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#125

Post by anyfoo »

JulianHart wrote: post #73
Fiveplus wrote: post #17

The collapse in IPv4 transfer prices is what caught my eye here, dropping from a ~$55 peak in 2021 to a mean of $22 in early 2026 (figure 12). This validates my hypothesis that the run-up in 2020–2022 was an artificial scarcity bubble driven largely by hyperscalers. AWS was right up there stockpiling before they shifted their pricing model. Once AWS introduced the hourly charge for public IPv4 addresses (effectively…

The CGNAT point is underrated. Carriers have zero incentive to move away from it - thousands of users per public IP, no transition cost. The interesting downstream effect is on IP reputation systems. Traditional detection assumed 1 IP = 1 user. CGNAT breaks that entirely - platforms can't aggressively filter mobile carrier IPs without blocking legitimate customers by the thousands. Makes sense the IPv4 price dropped…

I personally hate CGNAT, but I cannot deny that nowadays, the overwhelmingly vast majority of customers most likely does not care (and much less know) that they are behind CGNAT, so this is valid.

Come to think of it, for my use cases, I would probably be fine to be behind IPv4 NAT as long as I also have an un-NATted IPv6 prefix. But a big part of the question here of course is whether IPv6 adoption is worthwhile...

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#126

Post by orangeboats »

fpoling wrote: post #76
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IPv6 has failed at being better, being accessible, or both. I don't agree that it has. IPv6 is clearly better (no collisions between address space and thus no NAT requirement), and it's perfectly accessible to anyone who actually tries. I'm not by any means a top tier network guy but even to me IPv6 is dead easy to setup. The problem with the v6 transition is that people have very inaccurate views on one or both of…

Even 15 years ago IPv6 was much worse than IPv4 for most of the people. Only when the mobile operators has started to insist on it then the usage started to grow to significant numbers. Which showed the real problem with IPv6: lack of compatibility with IPv4. That was absolutely possible 30 years ago, but the designers decided that it would just complicate things.

I am tired of people claiming that you can make a "new Internet protocol that is compatible with IPv4".

No, backwards compatibility is not the problem here: IPv6-only hosts can easily connect to IPv4 hosts. Just append "64:ff9b::" to an existing IPv4 address, like so: 64:ff9b::8.8.8.8. Even prior to NAT64, we have plenty of schemes like 6to4 to bridge IPv4 and IPv6.

But no IPv4 hosts can ever connect to IPv6 hosts, or IPv7, or IPvInfinite for that matter. I will refer to my previous comment on why that is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46469336

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#127

Post by Dagger2 »

fpoling wrote: post #76
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IPv6 has failed at being better, being accessible, or both. I don't agree that it has. IPv6 is clearly better (no collisions between address space and thus no NAT requirement), and it's perfectly accessible to anyone who actually tries. I'm not by any means a top tier network guy but even to me IPv6 is dead easy to setup. The problem with the v6 transition is that people have very inaccurate views on one or both of…

Even 15 years ago IPv6 was much worse than IPv4 for most of the people. Only when the mobile operators has started to insist on it then the usage started to grow to significant numbers. Which showed the real problem with IPv6: lack of compatibility with IPv4. That was absolutely possible 30 years ago, but the designers decided that it would just complicate things.

No they didn't? v6 is compatible with v4 in tons of different ways, probably in almost every way that it's possible to be compatible with v4.

Admittedly, it's not compatible in the ways that _aren't_ possible. But it's highly unreasonable to blame that on the people who designed v6.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#128

Post by tyingq »

radlad wrote: post #94
cyberax wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NAT is not the firewall. NAT _is_ a firewall. And a much safer one than IPv6 firewalls, because NAT will fail safe if misconfigured.

NAT is not a firewall: all it does is rewrite packets, it does not drop them.

You have to squint a little and see they mean that most consumer routers don't map inbound unsolicited packets to anything internal unless the user specifically configured it to. Which is basically a firewall.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#129

Post by betaby »

cyberax wrote: post #96
snowwrestler wrote: post #24

I pay close attention to IPv4 addresses for outgoing emails. At work we use several email services and pay for a dedicated IP(v4) at each. And when we provision a new service, we expect our new IP address to be “clean,” by which I mean it is ideally not found on any email reputation list. For websites and services I don’t care. Some hosting platforms publish via CNAME, and some via A and AAAA records. Most seem to us…

> dig AAAA github.com > dig AAAA amazon.com Hm... It's more likely that the widespread deployment of CGNAT and 464XLAT in mobile networks made the IPv4 scarcity a non-issue. The some CGNAT solutions can multiplex more than 20000 devices onto a single IPv4 address. I'm a very early adopter of IPv6, and I _still_ have operational issues with it.

amazon.com is IPv4-only redirector to www.amazon.com which is dual-staked.

The same is true for amazon.fr.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#130

Post by Andrex »

landl0rd wrote: post #77
rendx wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this often that people refer to countries as actors. Are you implying that the government of these countries bought those resources and they're now owned by the government? Or are you saying that citizens/corporations of those countries are buying? I find it weird, I wouldn't use the phrase "The United States is buying XYZ" unless it was the current government doing so?

China does not have a meaningful distinction between private industry and the state. She also maintains a level of surveillance and control, particularly in the IT world, that makes this hard with some level of government sanction.

Sidebar: I've never stopped and considered the gender of nations, but in the tradition of ships I guess it makes sense.
Post reply on HN