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

231–240 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#231

Post by olyjohn »

mwcampbell wrote: post #199
bob1029 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been making us use a NAT gateway for all of our EC2 instances since the dawn of time. Only those that need to be directly touched on specific ports get dedicated IPv4. I can count all of our public IPv4 addresses on 1 hand, and that includes a static comcast address for a branch office. Using auto-assigned IPv4 should not be default, IMO. If I just did what amazon wanted me to without thinking, we would be consu…

Do you have any Internet-facing load balancers? IIUC, each AWS application load balancer gets a couple of public IPv4 addresses. So I guess if you have a single ALB and a couple of NAT gateways (in two availability zones), you could still end up with a total of 5 public IPv4 addresses.

Last time I set up an ALB, it required 8 IP addresses. I assume that is because it spins up extra instances on the backend as the load increases. Most of the time the hostname is only assigned to 2 IPs.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#232

Post by jaywalk »

lazide wrote: post #202
innocenat wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISP blocking ICMP might be a more probable reason than CGNAT. At least where I live.

It’s hard to tell sometimes what is going on. I just learned for instance that the cable modem provided by Comcast switched to NAT - and my router is also doing NAT - and my business firewall also does NAT. So at least 3 layers now. If they are doing CGNAT further into the infrastructure, how would I even be able to tell at this point? I’m assuming someone would also block ICMP just so it would be less embarrassing,…

Comcast doesn't do CGNAT, and their network has been 100% IPv6-capable for years now.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#233

Post by olyjohn »

chrisseaton wrote: post #72
edoceo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's cause you want to get to your home boxen from outside.

Surely you know this is a super niche requirement? You can use IP6 or a commercial rather than domestic ISP if you really need to do it.

It might not be so niche if we weren't all behind NAT firewalls. There would probably be a whole lot more applications that do direct connections between two people, and eliminate the middle-man. There's a reason every major service out there has their applications set up in some cloud to relay the messages back and forth between clients.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#234

Post by remuskaos »

jaywalk wrote: post #232
lazide wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard to tell sometimes what is going on. I just learned for instance that the cable modem provided by Comcast switched to NAT - and my router is also doing NAT - and my business firewall also does NAT. So at least 3 layers now. If they are doing CGNAT further into the infrastructure, how would I even be able to tell at this point? I’m assuming someone would also block ICMP just so it would be less embarrassing,…

Comcast doesn't do CGNAT, and their network has been 100% IPv6-capable for years now.

How do ipv6-only customers reach ipv4 hosts? Wouldn't some 6to4 gateway count as CGN?

I've had this problem in the past with Vodafone, sometimes their AFTR (?) would go down but all ipv6 enabled hosts were still reachable. Only the ipv4 internet was unreachable. It took months for me to find that out, and I still don't know any workaround in case that happens again.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#235

Post by remuskaos »

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…

I know this is probably so much not your point, but there are assumed to be 10^80 atoms in the visible universe, and 2^128 is only 3.4*10^38.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#236

Post by Ericson2314 »

j16sdiz wrote: post #82
Ericson2314 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Promoting the continued dominance of a standard which causes artificial scarcity.

I can't understand the reasoning here. They need to go after other service provider, not isp. ISP provide CGNAT to facilitate access to ipv4 only service.

Yeah I don't have much any problem with doing CGNat. We need to get the ISPs to do IPv6, and we need to penalize AWS when a customer chooses to do IPv4 only. (They will pass on the fee, which is just fine easier than going after the customers directly.)

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#237

Post by remuskaos »

niij wrote: post #160
School-Cotton wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. These aren’t true. There are still some big consumer-facing sites that are IPv4 only — notably twitter.com and amazon.com. I can definitely still access both from my mobile device.

My understanding is that there is some sort of translation taking place with 6to4, NAT64, ??? So while amazon.com may not have AAAA records/ipv6 it is still reachable by properly configured ipv6 clients with some sort of middleman to translate.

As far as I know, these middlemen are deployed by the respective ISPs and are not a core function of ipv6. I've had the 6to4 (or AFTR, I'm still not sure which) fail on my ISP and could only reach ipv6 enabled hosts, sometimes for hours.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#238

Post by Arnavion »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #219
wbl wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 makes addressing easy and addresses free. Let's not keep NAT alive.

While I'm all for IPv6 - there's precious little about v6 that's easier. On top of that, there's a whole lot of software that either doesn't support v6, or has major problems.

Do you have examples of software that you can't use because it doesn't support IPv6? Of all the software I've used there isn't any, which is why I'm curious.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#239

Post by Sebb767 »

rafaelm wrote: post #224
icedchai wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The /24 itself doesn’t cost me anything. I registered it before ARIN existed and it’s considered a “legacy” block. No fees cause I never signed their registration agreement. I pay about $180/month for a “business internet” cable line. 300 megabits down, 25 up. I also “know a guy” at the ISP who made sure the routing wasn’t going to be an issue.

Yep, I was wondering more about the ongoing costs of "operating" the block. I was reading a superuser.com question [1] about it and it mentions ongoing costs, like transit, BGP routing etc. This is super interesting! I didn't know this was even possible before I started looking into it. [1] https://superuser.com/questions/323801/how-can-i-own-an-ip-a...

When I read that right, all the transit and routing seems to be done by his ISP. The superuser response is about what happens when your provider (or in this case, ISP) does not do this.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#240

Post by wmf »

remuskaos wrote: post #234
jaywalk wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast doesn't do CGNAT, and their network has been 100% IPv6-capable for years now.

How do ipv6-only customers reach ipv4 hosts? Wouldn't some 6to4 gateway count as CGN? I've had this problem in the past with Vodafone, sometimes their AFTR (?) would go down but all ipv6 enabled hosts were still reachable. Only the ipv4 internet was unreachable. It took months for me to find that out, and I still don't know any workaround in case that happens again.

I think Comcast is running dual-stack so they don't have IPv6-only customers.

T-Mobile is running IPv6-only using 464 which is vulnerable to AFTR problems like you saw.

Post reply on HN