241–250 of 283 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative view - those addresses should not be "returned". They're owned. I hope hoarders will get blocks as large as they can so that we experience real shortage and start seeing the first ipv6-only services.
The addresses are not owned by those in the list. They are allocated for an ongoing yearly fee.
Another huge problem is that companies are handling out IPv6 by bulks of /128 subnets per machine, and many experts encourage “one IP per service on the machine”, adding “it’s good for security since it’s harder to scan all ports of all subnet IPs. So at that pace, I still wonder how IPv6 will not run out of IP as quickly as IPv4. One IP per server should be the norm.
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...
There are also cloud providers, like Vultr, that will allow you to do BGP with them. You could then get a network block routed to a VPS, then tunnel it out or whatever.
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.
Somebody doesn't do any address or route planning.
In IPv6 the amount of hosts in a subnet is totally unimportant (because there are always 64 bits for this). If you have, say, a thousand hosts you're going to need to buy decent network kit 'cos a pile of daisy-chained 5 port plastic home switches won't like that - but it's only a local problem, like buying enough cable. You can have however many subnetworks you felt was appropriate for managing and organising things, and only those need managing. However in IPv4 you need to know how many hosts there will be or might be in each subnet, in order to plan address allocation, and small changes can throw things into turmoil, you have to manage the individual host addresses.
Suppose I have four subnets with 40-50 hosts in each - in IPv4 chances are that's four /26s. And then somebody wants to add 20 hosts to one of the larger subnets so now it won't fit in a /26 any more. Ugh. This is likely to involve a re-numbering programme that might take weeks or months. I may need to reach above me, to find somebody who has enough address space to trade with me, and they may in turn have to reach up too, or worse find the money to buy space. Suddenly what should have been an easy problem ("add twenty new hosts") is a nightmare with a budget and project management.
IPv6 evaporates this entire class of problems. There might actually be people at large organisations whose job ceases to exist under IPv6. Certainly there are people whose job gets much easier and less stressful, and who don't have to say "No" as often any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does IPv4's use translate to anti-trust?
Controlling 200 times more of a critical resource than the next competitor does not sound like healthy competition.
A user doesn't really see any difference when traffic gets delivered over IPv6 instead of IPv4, so the scarcity of the global IPv4 space is meaningless compared to the incredibly vast usable size of the global IP space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are we in danger of the cloud providers effectively being the Internet? Between cloudflare and AWS/Azure/Google most of the Internet is an oligopoly right now. Interesting how nobody else replied to this part of your comment.
Well, when the internet cartel pays your bills... Technology certainly scaling and improving but it's being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. In the past I could compete with most sophisticated companies, it wasn't unattainable. Barrier to entry is simply too high now. No single or small team of developers and technologists is going to compete with AWS.
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.
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…
It really depends on your needs - I use nano sized SPOT instances for NAT gateways which only cost a penny a month. They in no way compete with the 40gbs capacity and high availability of the hardware NAT devices but if the majority of your traffic is internal, going to a peered VPC, or over IPV6 and you just need a means to make an occasional API call to one of the AWS endpoints that don’t yet support IPV6 (which is…