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

251–260 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#251

Post by otterley »

mwcampbell wrote: post #220
lazyant wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding NAT gateway pricing (~ $30/month or so iirc) we can use a micro (~ $10/month) Linux instance, it's quite literally about 2 commands (sysctl enable ip forwarding and a masquerade iptables command) or a short script to set it up.

But that's another thing to keep patched. I wonder if it would be feasible, when using a stripped-down container host OS like Bottlerocket, to configure one container host instance per availability zone to also do NAT. Note that I'm assuming a setup where the containers are running in ECS tasks that use the awsvpc network mode (i.e. each task has its own VPC network interface and private IP address), so security grou…

Also, you need to deal with instance failure while minimizing downtime.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#252

Post by usr1106 »

IncRnd wrote: post #247
usr1106 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controlling 200 times more of a critical resource than the next competitor does not sound like healthy competition.

That you call global IPv4 addresses to be a critical resource is extremely odd. If I go to prudential.com or to another insurer's website, the IP delivery addressing protocol doesn't affect 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 spac…

According to Google's statistics https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html over 65% cannot reach them via IPv6.

So offering any service just on IPv6 makes no sense in 99% of the cases. You can use if for some internal cases, if you can be sure that all your users have IPv6 wherever they happen to be.

If you are cloud provider and cannot offer your customers as many public IPv4 addresses as they want you are out of business.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#253

Post by nextaccountic »

nsizx wrote: post #123
southerntofu wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard Internet procedures for IP addresses is apply to your Regional Internet Registry for addresses, and the panel decides who will make best use of them (usually smaller/newer providers are prioritized). You only pay administrative/membership fees for the addresses because IP addresses are technical bits not property... everyone operates addresses but nobody owns them. That people sell food and houses is disconc…

The fact that you find private property "disconcerting" is enough to know this conversation is not going to go anywhere.

IP addresses were distributed on an per need basis. Now it became a lucrative investment (people didn't originally pay millions for this block!)

Why should IP addresses be private property? Why not simply reclaim unused IP addresses instead, and re-distribute it using the usual mechanism?

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#254

Post by niij »

remuskaos wrote: post #237
niij wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not strictly required for the ISP to run it, I think Hurricane Electric did/does run something like those for free. But in general, yes, it's on the clients to handle.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#256

Post by andrewjf »

mjevans wrote: post #67
LeoPanthera wrote: post #45

The DoD still owns 14 class A blocks, right? And is 240.0.0.0/4 still "reserved"?

Many firewalls that don't expect IPs in that block to be valid will just drop the packets as bogus.

I’m a huge IPv6 advocate, but I can’t imagine we’re not better off releasing 240.0.0.0/4 to RIRs and fixing stuff that makes that assumption. That’s an enormous amount of IP space.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#257

Post by icedchai »

api wrote: post #215
p1mrx wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZeroTier has a flat address space governed by a single algorithm. The Internet is a loose hierarchy of independently-managed networks. These problems have quite different addressing requirements. Analogy: ZeroTier is to https://plus.codes/ as IPv6 is to mailing addresses. A mailing address is pretty long, but you can use its structure to route the mail efficiently.

The Internet is governed by a single algorithm: IP routing. Short IP addresses are a lot easier than short cryptographic addresses. Adding 16 or 32 more bits to IPv4 would have been trivial. The existing IPv4 address space becomes 0.0.n.n.n.n or perhaps 0.n.n.n.n.0 if you wanted to give every existing IP 256 addresses to assign while also multiplying the IP space by 256. Easy, easy, easy.

Adding 16 bits or 32 bits doesn't matter: The networking stack of every device would still need to be updated to understand the new address structure (just like IPv6!) You can't magically fit 48 bits in a 32 bit field.

IPv6 was the correct long term approach. You wouldn't want to pick only 48 bits and have to do this again in 20 years.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#258

Post by mjevans »

andrewjf wrote: post #256
mjevans wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many firewalls that don't expect IPs in that block to be valid will just drop the packets as bogus.

I’m a huge IPv6 advocate, but I can’t imagine we’re not better off releasing 240.0.0.0/4 to RIRs and fixing stuff that makes that assumption. That’s an enormous amount of IP space.

The argument against that is to 'deploy and fix IPv6', since this just kicks the can down the road, which has already been going for at least 20 years at this point.

"The first RFC to standardize IPv6 was the RFC 1883 in 1995, which became obsoleted by RFC 2460 in 1998. In July 2017 this RFC was obsoleted by RFC 8200, which elevated IPv6 to "Internet Standard" (the highest maturity level for IETF protocols)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#259

Post by easrng »

tolien wrote: post #148
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i have never used google search but the other day someone used that infront of me and on the bottom i saw what appeared to be "pin code for approximating your current location for local results" and something to that end. that scared me big time because this was like my home pin code, my small city has like 30 so this is narrowing me down to a single one which i am not comfortable with

Right, but is Google doing this with the information they get from your IP address or something else entirely? Is it just coincidence that your IP address corresponds to your ISP’s office which happens to be relatively local? With loose enough permissions your browser has a geolocation API that, depending on your device, will be a hell of a lot more accurate (if you have Wi-Fi hardware it can use that to work out whe…

I believe Google has their own IP geolocation database, likely seeded from all their apps that have location access because the location given at the bottom of the search results pages is always far more accurate than any other IP geolocater I've seen and there are others on my WiFi network who use Google services with location.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#260

Post by robbedpeter »

p1mrx wrote: post #170
mgkimsal wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you could probably address every grain of rice throughout all of human history, but not every atom on the planet.
Post reply on HN