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

251–260 of 372 posts

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

#251

Post by topranks »

throw0101a wrote: post #203
zokier wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I own 2048 IPv4’s myself and their value is ever increasing. Like digital real estate, without the fluctuation of crypto. Until the day when ipv6-only connectivity becomes practical/commonplace. At some point ipv4 market is going to crash when they are simply not needed anymore. Of course that inflection point might still be quite far away, but I wouldn't count on ipv4 stock being a retirement fund

> Until the day when ipv6-only connectivity becomes practical/commonplace. IIRC, this has already occurred for mobile phones. * https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mob... It's (one off?) the reasons why Apple mandates that apps work with IPv6-only networks: * https://developer.apple.com/support/ipv6/

T-Mobile did it in the US.

And a lot of Indian providers as far as I know.

Most still doing either v4 only with CG-NAT or dual stack.

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

#252

Post by jonathanlydall »

pc86 wrote: post #209
fpig wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always good for a VPN to deny any information about the customer to a server, I would imagine that's not what was referred to as sketchy. Making a user indistinguishable from a typical user from country X is just the VPN doing its job correctly. It seems, however, that at least some VPN providers use their customers' bandwidth without their knowledge to route other customers through it. I'd say that qualifies as…

Isn't the vast majority of geoblocking due to regulations, legislation, or contract agreements? That hardly qualifies as "discrimination."

It's left over from a time before distribution over the internet was practical, when middle-men added value (local promotion, collection of royalties, etc) to video distrubution.

The internet made them largely redundant, but they still had their contracts and pushed to have things like geo-blocking to maintain their "local monopoly" arrangement.

When legal options are not readily available to me due to geo-blocking, I have no qualms about pirating instead.

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

#253

Post by deadbunny »

i_like_to_post wrote: post #130
enz wrote: post #106

Let's use IPv6 more and it'll worth far less than $2B.

The problem with IPv6 is that it's a fundamentally flawed design. Which looks easier to input / dictate over the phone / write down somewhere? 220.12.30.01 or 2001:cdba:0000:0000:0000:0000:3257:9652?

I mean 2001:cdba::3257:9652 is about the same as ipv4...

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

#254

Post by freehunter »

Spooky23 wrote: post #223
fpig wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always good for a VPN to deny any information about the customer to a server, I would imagine that's not what was referred to as sketchy. Making a user indistinguishable from a typical user from country X is just the VPN doing its job correctly. It seems, however, that at least some VPN providers use their customers' bandwidth without their knowledge to route other customers through it. I'd say that qualifies as…

I agree in principle, but sometimes it’s hard. I pay a significant amount of money for MLB streaming, only to have many games blacked out. Due to various factors, I cannot legally get access to those games.

It figuratively kills me that I live in an area where three of the five closest teams to me are blacked out on MLB.tv but they're all far enough that it would take several hours of driving to actually go to a game in-person and the local TV stations don't air those games. It's actually pretty much completely killed my interest in baseball since I can't watch any of the teams I actually care about.

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

#255

Post by jsz0 »

hpoe wrote: post #14

From what I understand the problem with IPv6 isn't technical problems it is with legacy. According to what I know in Africa and Asia they have mostly already been running on IPv6 the problem is just basically a bunch of lazy network admins in NA and the EU that don't want to learn the new tech and organizations that don't want to switch.

Running a dual stack IPv4/IPv6 network at minimum doubles the amount of work network engineers need to do on a daily basis. Consider something as simple as a ping monitor to determine if a device is up or down now has to test for both IPv4 and IPv6 reachability.

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

#256

Post by dunce2020 »

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

What vetting do you do on people purchasing bandwidth?

How confident can I be that the Feds wont pay me a visit at 4am?

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

#257

Post by topranks »

cranekam wrote: post #186
mrweasel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not 100% sure, but if WhatsApp wanted to run their own datacenters, then they'll need their own IP ranges, and BGP/AS numbers is how IPs are "routed". The AS number is used to let others know that a given IP range is reachable via your router. I'd like to give a better explanation, but I think it would be wrong. BGP is really hard for me to grasp, even if my networking colleagues claims it's not really that compl…

"Running a datacenter" isn't something that inherently needs its own IP range. You could run a datacenter only in private address space and NAT to the internet (though this wouldn't really be very practical) or even run in private space. My point is that having a lot of computers doesn't _necessarily_ require getting public IPs or ASNs. You need public addresses if you want to be publicly reachable. If you're small y…

While what you suggest is possible it’s amature and fraught with problems.

Any halfway serious company that wanted to run a global application on their own infra is gonna need their own ASN and internet presence with their own IP space.

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

#258

Post by jghn »

vikramkr wrote: post #185
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but $20k is like, a year's tuition at a University. Did parent also rent a mansion to live in while attending?

Depending on the university that might not cover a semester. Still, within 6 months of making money at that level, your post tax earnings are going to be enough for even the most expensive undergraduate programs

It also depends on when this was.

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

Spooky23 wrote: post #225
cosmodisk wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back at home the company behind NordVPN is touted as a top company.Recenly was reading an article that they'll be moving to new premises, as they've already got 1500 working for them.

That’s the thing that is so bizarre about VPNs. That’s a big company — why do people trust them?

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by topranks »

im3w1l wrote: post #53
toast0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen some VM providers charge more to get an instance with IPv4 connectivity. Amazon doesn't charge extra for that (last I looked anyway), so that's a potential advantage. IPv6 penetration is growing, but Akamai reports that even the most IPv6 networks only go to ~ 92% IPv6. So if you want to have full reach, you need IPv4, but you don't really need IPv6 (although, you may want it, some of the CGNAT systems that…

Do users on cgnat typically have cgnat ipv6 or not?

No there is basically no NAT with IPv6, apart from some very niche edge cases.

NAT is expensive.

Post reply on HN