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

161–170 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#161

Post by netr0ute »

nsizx wrote: post #159
netr0ute wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just got wooooshed.

I know it was a joke, but according to his other comments he seems to think IP addresses cannot be owned because they are nothing but numbers.

That's true though. If you're a tier 1 network then you can advertise whatever you want, and if they cut you off on that advertised address, then you can cut your peer's address off. And, if you're big enough, the peers can't just disconnect from you altogether or they themselves would lose connections to other peers. This is why BGP and the other routing protocols are so cool; you can get control of the internet if you just buy some routers and create a way to get advantageous peering relationships. It's an offer you can't refuse.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#162

Post by nsizx »

netr0ute wrote: post #161
nsizx wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it was a joke, but according to his other comments he seems to think IP addresses cannot be owned because they are nothing but numbers.

That's true though. If you're a tier 1 network then you can advertise whatever you want, and if they cut you off on that advertised address, then you can cut your peer's address off. And, if you're big enough, the peers can't just disconnect from you altogether or they themselves would lose connections to other peers. This is why BGP and the other routing protocols are so cool; you can get control of the internet if…

That's like saying that private property is worthless because the state can take it from you by force.

Technically that's correct, but if that generally doesn't happen then it's not something we have to worry about.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#163

Post by netr0ute »

nsizx wrote: post #162
netr0ute wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true though. If you're a tier 1 network then you can advertise whatever you want, and if they cut you off on that advertised address, then you can cut your peer's address off. And, if you're big enough, the peers can't just disconnect from you altogether or they themselves would lose connections to other peers. This is why BGP and the other routing protocols are so cool; you can get control of the internet if…

That's like saying that private property is worthless because the state can take it from you by force. Technically that's correct, but if that generally doesn't happen then it's not something we have to worry about.

Can IPv4 even be defined as private property if it is nothing more than a few DDN numbers? I could make a Internet 2 that's totally isolated and restart the whole IP allocation process all over again.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#164

Post by mgkimsal »

api wrote: post #146
wu_187 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All this is because IPv6 addresses are too long. If they’d made it 48 or 64 bits we would be fully converted by now. We are dragging because people hate using it. I’ve been saying this for years. Nobody gets it because geeks don’t get ergonomics.

I've said it for years too. It's not JUST because they're long - years ago (and maybe even today?) there's still some hardware issues with keeping large sets of addresses for routing (I'm not an expert on this - I seem to remember reading about this years ago - larger ISPs not being able to keep all their routing rules in memory because of IPv6 address sizes - maybe I'm WAY off).

But, yes, generally, you're right. It's been seen from the very beginning as "a big move". If every address A.B.C.D was addressable as 0.A.B.C.D, and we opened up another 255 * 4 billion addresses... we'd have been converted a long time ago. And we'd have been better at actually implementing 'upgrades' because they'd be already done/completed - it wouldn't be a 'monumental task(tm)'.

We don't need every atom in the universe to be able to have 16 public addresses.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#165

Post by moduspol »

mwcampbell wrote: post #158

I wish that instead of buying more IPv4 blocks, AWS would drastically lower the price of NAT gateways, then charge extra for EC2 instances and Fargate tasks with public IPs, to make it a no-brainer to stop wasting public IPs. As it stands, it's cheaper to waste public IPs than to use NAT gateways. Addendum: I also wish I could volunteer to be switched over to CGNAT for my personal IPv4 traffic. This discussion got me…

Yep. Or even give me a CG-NAT adoption. I have plenty of use cases where I only use a public IP address in AWS for Internet connectivity without any need for new incoming connections. For those, I'd be totally fine with a CG-NAT address.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#166

Post by mwcampbell »

moduspol wrote: post #165
mwcampbell wrote: post #158

I wish that instead of buying more IPv4 blocks, AWS would drastically lower the price of NAT gateways, then charge extra for EC2 instances and Fargate tasks with public IPs, to make it a no-brainer to stop wasting public IPs. As it stands, it's cheaper to waste public IPs than to use NAT gateways. Addendum: I also wish I could volunteer to be switched over to CGNAT for my personal IPv4 traffic. This discussion got me…

Yep. Or even give me a CG-NAT adoption. I have plenty of use cases where I only use a public IP address in AWS for Internet connectivity without any need for new incoming connections. For those, I'd be totally fine with a CG-NAT address.

I wonder if we could hack that for ourselves by having our EC2 instances or Fargate tasks do all outgoing Internet access indirectly through Lambda functions.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#167

Post by nolaspring »

skuhn wrote: post #25
jagger27 wrote: post #9

Who the heck has a couple /12s and a /13 just lying around unused? And there are even some earlier pickups of two /10s: 252.0.0.0/10 and 44.192.0.0/10. Wow.

Amazon bought 3.0.0.0/8 from GE in 2018 [1]. So part of this is putting into service networks that they previously acquired, probably to keep up with growth. Buying in 2018 would have been a MUCH lower price than today -- and it can pretty much only go up! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18407173

I worked at GE when this was done. Because a lot of things decided what was GE/not GE based on coming from a 3.x address it caused chaos. They called it 3-dot-geddon

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#168

Post by remram »

mwcampbell wrote: post #158

I wish that instead of buying more IPv4 blocks, AWS would drastically lower the price of NAT gateways, then charge extra for EC2 instances and Fargate tasks with public IPs, to make it a no-brainer to stop wasting public IPs. As it stands, it's cheaper to waste public IPs than to use NAT gateways. Addendum: I also wish I could volunteer to be switched over to CGNAT for my personal IPv4 traffic. This discussion got me…

I noticed that too on GCP. Many of my workloads don't need a public address but it's still simpler and cheaper to set one.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#170

Post by p1mrx »

mgkimsal wrote: post #164
api wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this is because IPv6 addresses are too long. If they’d made it 48 or 64 bits we would be fully converted by now. We are dragging because people hate using it. I’ve been saying this for years. Nobody gets it because geeks don’t get ergonomics.

I've said it for years too. It's not JUST because they're long - years ago (and maybe even today?) there's still some hardware issues with keeping large sets of addresses for routing (I'm not an expert on this - I seem to remember reading about this years ago - larger ISPs not being able to keep all their routing rules in memory because of IPv6 address sizes - maybe I'm WAY off). But, yes, generally, you're right. It…

> We don't need every atom in the universe to be able to have 16 public addresses.

IPv6 isn't even remotely that big. There are about 10^38 IPv6 addresses, 10^50 atoms on Earth, and 10^80 atoms in the universe.

Post reply on HN