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

261–270 of 372 posts

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

#261

Post by deadbunny »

therealx wrote: post #56
Latty wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of NAT going on these days, and a lot of shared addresses. All those devices aren't all online at the same time. As I see it, IPv6 can't come fast enough. NAT really needs to die a death so people can actually use the internet fully, not only as a client or using hack-y work-arounds.

I want ipv6 as much as anyone, but we are not spending enough time preparing for NATs death. It's responsible for far more security than we as a collective would like to admit and there's a lot more we could be doing now to get ready.

20+ years isn't enough?

More seriously; for 99% of people their ISP router handles NAT and firewall duties. Adding DENY ALL inbound and ALLOW ALL outbound isn't a great stretch for them on ipv6.

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

#262

Post by topranks »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #58
stingraycharles wrote: post #2

I’m more surprised that a single IP address is worth $20 apparently than Amazon owning 100 million of them. What I wonder, is it a competitive advantage for Amazon at this point that they have so many? Phrased differently, would it benefit Amazon if the current status quo of IPv4 vs IPv6 adoption is maintained?

No, not really. If a new organization needs a large block of ip addresses, they just use IPv6. The biggest reason IPv4 persists is because deploying IPv6 can be very expensive for legacy users: new equipment, retraining, hiring. For a large organization, planning and executing such a deployment can take years. There are a lot of fresh new telecom providers in India who do not have that kind of baggage, so they chose…

You need v4 as well in the world today. Lots of users still have no v6, if your business wants to do business with them you need some v4.

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

#263

Post by alephu5 »

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

Luminati does this too, the provide an SDK to app developers that lets users decide between seeing ads, paying a fee or allowing use of their IP when it's not being used.

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

#264

Post by [deleted] »

toast0 wrote: post #83
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind contiguous IPv4 addresses are worth $20. One of the few examples of “the more of them you have for sale, the more they’re worth”

There's a u shaped curve on pricing. There's a lot of demand for /24s, because sometimes that's all you can justify. Once you get bigger than what can be easily justified, the prices go down a bit. If you need a /18, you can probably use either an /18 or two /19s or ... You can make it work, and there's not enough benefit for contiguous to pay more. Of course, if you can justify an /8, there is a premium for contiguo…

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by crispyporkbites »

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.

You can’t run an email server on ipv6, as most email service providers still use IP blocklists to score spam. Blocklists on IPv6 are not feasible.

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

#266

Post by deadbunny »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #233
globular-toast wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

The same was true for ipv4 until about a decade ago.

> 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...)

I can't wait for conficker6 to innovate it's way around the ipv6 net.

> 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 ?)

Sounds like an excellent reason for an opt-out by standard. 99% of the world's internet users wouldn't have a clue how to manage a firewall. Directly connecting all their devices to the internet is an awful idea for 99% of the world.

Your 50/50 example is hugely biased, first it's on a Telco discussion forum so that clearly selects for technical users, then it's on ipv6 which is going to further select for technical people.

Go canvas 100 random people outside a supermarket if they want to have to manually manage a firewall for every device they connect to their network. If they don't give you a blank stare at that question remind them that includes everything from lightbulbs, washing machines, "smart" speakers, to their computers/phones (likely the only thing they think of as being connected to the internet). If you find more than 1 I'll eat my hat.

I don't own a hat.

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

#267

Post by alyandon »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #196
enz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why. Major consumer-grade French ISPs give IPv6 by default on FTTH installations and the router is configured accordingly (Orange, Free, SFR, Bouygues Telecom). Generally, you get a /64. Of course, when using IPv6 there is no NATting, each of your device has its own IPv6 address of the /64 range allocated to you.

And yet they are still not doing it properly: they are supposed to be giving at least /48 for businesses and /56 for customers: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690

Yep, I'm happy my ISP actually does proper prefix delegation and hands me a /56. I still often wonder if a /96 for a host and /64 for a network would have been a more reasonable allocation strategy though.

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

#268

Post by tempest_ »

throw0101a wrote: post #204
pdkl95 wrote: post #46

$ wget https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json $ grep ip_prefix ip-ranges.json | sed -re 's|.*(/[0-9]+).*|\1|' | sort | uniq -c 4 /11 16 /12 30 /13 82 /14 188 /15 278 /16 70 /17 63 /18 30 /19 47 /20 111 /21 248 /22 204 /23 839 /24 68 /25 235 /26 142 /27 124 /28 50 /29 42 /30 362 /31 370 /32

You may be interested in jq : > jq is like sed for JSON data - you can use it to slice and filter and map and transform structured data with the same ease that sed, awk, grep and friends let you play with text. * https://stedolan.github.io/jq/

With jq and curl

  curl -s https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json | jq '.prefixes | .[].ip_prefix | .[-3:]' |  sort | uniq -c

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

#269

Post by factotvm »

fortran77 wrote: post #231
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You’re off by about 20% on the take home.

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

#270

Post by wmf »

dijit wrote: post #175
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

But you still need an ipv4 address even if it’s only 10% of people who are ipv4 only.

You still need one IPv4 address per app or maybe per CDN. It's very few addresses.
Post reply on HN