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

AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

toonk.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#151

Post by cyberax »

_JamesA_ wrote: post #127
kxrm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually went through this process with ARIN. So I can give you that perspective. It wasn't a big deal, the only minor concern I had was it felt like you're encouraged to sign up under a business entity. I had an LLC, so it was natural just to use that. I don't know what kind of vetting they do if you decide to use yourself as an organization though instead of a different legal entity. You need to provide justifica…

Is there a way to get a /24 block that I own and has been unused since the mid 90's routed without signing a new contract and paying the new ARIN fees?

You can not "own" a /24 block. And if your membership lapses, then your blocks are returned to the general pool.

It's possible that your block is a part of a legacy allocation, they are governed differently.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#152

Post by cyberax »

leoh wrote: post #31

fwiw, ATT charges me $15 for ~8 fixed ipv4 addresses on my gigabit plan. Even if we amortize against the total monthly bill of $113, we get ~$15 per IP. EDIT: I guess this is the cost to _rent_ an IP per month and not the cost of _owning_ an IPv4 address.

I'm paying $100 a month for a /27. So I can assign a real IPv4 to my smart fridge! I might even do that one day, before throwing it out.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#155

Post by welterde »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #147
welterde wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That document has been going around for ages and is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients. This is just not possible. Most of the other criticism is not relevant anymore, since we now have a lot of transition technologies that allow IPv6 clients to interoperate with IPv4 servers (this way around is possible since…

> Overall we are now much further into the IPv6 migration than djb ever envisioned. That post was written 20 years ago . I would hope that the migration would be more than "much further along", I'd have hoped it had been completed, like a decade ago. > is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients I'm not a network eng…

I have yet to read any IPv6 alternative that can theoretically work or is not just IPv6 in disguise (or something that is implemented in IPv6 in a slightly similar fashion).

It may sound like a great plan as long as one doesn't look too closely at the details. IPv4 has fixed 32-bit addresses and one cannot cram more than 32-bit of information into a fixed 32-bit field. But one would need to do that for it to be forward compatible, since how would a IPv4-only client open communications with a expanded address space server?

One idea is to only upgrade the client and server and tunnel the expanded address space packets over IPv4. IPv6 has that - that's how it was bootstrapped before native IPv6 connectivity was a thing.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#156

Post by bradley13 »

qingcharles wrote: post #41
petarb wrote: post #20

Can someone please ELI5?

The Internet is built on what is called version 4 of Internet Protocol, which when they designed it allotted 4Bn total IP addresses. Each device on the Internet would be able to have one IP and 4Bn would be more than enough for the whole of Planet Earth. Fast forward a couple of decades and everyone needs 10 IPs each. You have your phone, your laptop, your work computer, your TV, your door lock, your door bell camera…

And the people who designed IPv6 designed a beautiful, perfect protocoll that was incompatible with the old IPv4 protocol. Which meant that a graceful, gradual shift to IPv6 was impossible. Cheap IoT devices are still being manufactured that support only the old protocol.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#157

Post by bradley13 »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #74
qingcharles wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet is built on what is called version 4 of Internet Protocol, which when they designed it allotted 4Bn total IP addresses. Each device on the Internet would be able to have one IP and 4Bn would be more than enough for the whole of Planet Earth. Fast forward a couple of decades and everyone needs 10 IPs each. You have your phone, your laptop, your work computer, your TV, your door lock, your door bell camera…

> Fast forward a couple of decades and everyone needs 10 IPs each. You have your phone, your laptop, your work computer, your TV, your door lock, your door bell camera, your thermostat, etc. Your phone perhaps, but the rest of these devices never need a public IP address.

The purity of IPv6 doesn't want NAT. Therefore, yes, all of those devices are supposed to have public addresses.

We can debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but that is the way IPv6 is supposed to work.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#159

Post by sfeng »

bradley13 wrote: post #93

Can we go back in time and hit the designers of IPv6 upside the head? The decision not to make IPv6 backwards compatible, the belief that a beautiful new standard could magically replace something already so widespread... "Naive" is an inadequate word. We are still futzing with the transition 3 decades later, with no end in sight. Grrr, grumble...

I personally would have added one additional byte, but when it is written I would have added two bits to each of the original bytes. That has the advantage of making each segment 0-1023. I would have reserved the 1000-1024 values, such that IP addresses look the same visually: 476.188.049.772, but the available number is increased by a factor of more than 200. Maybe it’s not too late to release IPv5…
Post reply on HN