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

Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

dangoldin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 372 posts

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#231

Post by fortran77 »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #97
TechBro8615 wrote: post #49

I used to own 10k IP addresses that I sold as proxy servers to internet marketers. I made about $20k a month and it paid my bills through college. I had no idea what I was doing and eventually shut down the company, but damn, I wish I at least kept control of those things. If you want to see some sketchy shit, look deeply into what the VPN companies are doing.

> I made about $20k a month and it paid my bills through college. Lord man, what kind of bills were these?

If he lived in California, he'd only be taking home 10K a month. Tuition, room and board at Stanford would take most of the rest.

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#232

Post by icedchai »

CKN23-ARIN wrote: post #57
spoonjim wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you own an IPv4 in perpetuity? Can they be bought in small scale, say 1-10?

The smallest routable IPv4 network on the Internet is a /24, which is 256 addresses. Regional Internet Registries won't assign you smaller than a /24, but individual ISPs might. Even if you have an assignment, maintaining it requires payment of annual fees to your RIR, unless you're a lucky "legacy" address holder from before the RIRs were formed.

I own a /24 from the early 90's, registered before ARIN and the other RIRs existed. It is considered a legacy block and I've never signed the legacy registration agreement, so no fees for me! I do have it routed to my home network over a "business broadband" connection.

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#233

Post by BlueTemplar »

globular-toast wrote: post #195
BlueTemplar wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If firewalls are even needed, a recent poll on an IPv6 professional forum ended with 50/50 split between opt-in and opt-out for IPv6 firewalls in routers of consumer ISPs...

That's surprising and quite concerning. Imagine all the insecure IoT devices running ancient software having a direct connection to the Internet... It would be even more concerning if they were shipping routers without any firewall functionality at all. NAT basically requires a firewall. I hope the thinking isn't if you can do away with NAT you can do away with the firewall.

The thinking of the opt-inners seems to be (roughly) that :

-IPv6 is fundamentally much more secure than IPv4 (no scanning, etc.)

-opt-out is bad for innovation, especially since the cheap default ISP router firewall software is likely to not even allow opt-out for any other protocols than TCP and UDP. (Heck, these days on IPv4 even anything different than HTTPS can be problematic...)

-reliance on router firewalls is bad because they incentivize sloppy device security - the manufacturers should be instead liable when they are at fault for screwing it up (also, how many of these "insecure IoT devices running ancient software" are even able to run IPv6 ?)

source : https://lafibre.info/ipv6/ipv6-le-firewall/msg704095/#msg704... (fr)

Incidentally, one of the "big 4" French ISPs "Free" didn't even have an IPv6 firewall on its customers routers between 2008 and 2019, and it's probably still opt-in : 4 months ago : https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=202008121107... (fr)

So I guess that we're going to see in practice the problems that having no IPv6 firewall causes (most customers not having any idea about what even is a firewall) as it gets more popular... and since Free this summer boasted about reaching 99% IPv6 coverage, and is enabled by default, and can NOT be disabled...

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#234

Post by __lazybyte »

pc86 wrote: post #207
J0_k3r wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

man I'd have just stuck with it for 20k a month damn, good luck getting a salary that high working for some company.

Come on man everyone here works for a FAANG making $600k/yr plus stock, don't you know that?

This cracked me up :)

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#235

Post by BlueTemplar »

dijit wrote: post #200
BlueTemplar wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer and fewer people are able to get an IPv4 address - that's the main reason for IPv6 !

But some people (like myself) are unable to get an ipv6 right now. Some people are unable to get ipv6 from their cloud hosted servers outbound right now too. Even if they tried.

See this answer of mine : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25398775

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#236

Post by saalweachter »

rdbell wrote: post #176
bluesign wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the one of the best (if not the best) solution out there I tried so far, congratulations. I am very happy to see it is from fellow HNer.

Thanks for the encouragement! I think I found your username in our DB, and I've added extra bandwidth credits to your account :)

I know you're being nice here, and I have no idea if that particular user cared, but like, as someone who has to take frequent user data/trust/privacy/handling trainings, like, don't ever do that.

Firstly, you really want to engineer your systems as much as possible so that you can't look at any PII -- and that includes things like usernames that aren't displayed to the public, and maybe even ones that are! -- as an administrator of your system, without going through some sort of "break glass in case of emergency" process that leaves an audit trail with a clear policy of when it is acceptable.

Second, even if you have access for job-related tasks, you shouldn't spontaneously try to tie user accounts to outside identities; that should be like line 4 or 5 in your data access policy. The right way to do the above would be something like saying "Thanks for vouching for us! If you message me your username @XYZ, I'll add some extra bandwidth credits to your account. :)"; that turns the interaction/demasking into something voluntary on the user's behalf, rather than you creepily stalking them through your user DB.

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#237

Post by benjohnson »

austincheney wrote: post #224

What, besides DNS, is preventing the migration to IPv6? Is it old technology still in use? My house is completely IPv6 and not intentionally so.

For myself, IPv6 address are just to annoying to deal with as a human.

It's as much of a mental shift as replacing street addresses with Latitude/Longitude coordinates.

So I've avoided IPv6 as much as possible.

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#238

Post by apexalpha »

rdbell wrote: post #144
tpetry wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very often your residential connection is sold as proxy to e.g. circumvent rate limits. Companies like luminati are used for example for scraping google search results and many more things.

My startup offers a residential IP sharing model where users get paid to share their bandwidth: https://packetstream.io

Hang on I can make money by sharing my internet at night when I don't use it anyway and US persons might need internet from NL? That sounds awesome.

edit: The information on how it's secured for packeteers seems a bit limited. (how do you prevent people spraying 192.168.1.1 into all endpoints?).

But it's interesting enough to hit up in a seperate docker network. I'm looking forward to seeing if it'll actually use GBs.

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#239

Post by sammax »

shmoogy wrote: post #216
TechBro8615 wrote: post #49

I used to own 10k IP addresses that I sold as proxy servers to internet marketers. I made about $20k a month and it paid my bills through college. I had no idea what I was doing and eventually shut down the company, but damn, I wish I at least kept control of those things. If you want to see some sketchy shit, look deeply into what the VPN companies are doing.

> If you want to see some sketchy shit, look deeply into what the VPN companies are doing. You mean selling use of residential IP addresses of people who have no idea? I assumed that was the case when I saw companies selling proxies that route through residential IPs

how do they do that?

Re: Amazon owns more than $2B worth of IPv4 addresses

#240

Post by welterde »

maven29 wrote: post #103
toast0 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically not (but I guess it's possible). CGNAT is expensive to run, but carriers do it because it can be less expensive than getting more IPv4 addresses, and it's faster to add capacity than to get addresses. IPv6 addresses are very low cost and quick to ger assigned, so if you're supporting IPv6, and you run low on addresses, adding CGNAT doesn't make sense. It's much more typical to either have cgnat IPv4 and pub…

In the wake of the wannacry debacle, quite a few ISPs have moved IPv6 as well behind CGNAT.

That doesn't sound quite right to be honest - do you have a source for that?

I don't even see what possible rational there could be for such a change. Most native v6 consumer already have firewalls for IPv6 in the CPE which block any incoming connections per default, so not even the misusing NAT as firewall argument applies here.

Post reply on HN