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

261–270 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#261

Post by bradknowles »

olyjohn wrote: post #231
mwcampbell wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two per AZ you operate in. If you want to be multi-AZ across four AZs, then 4*2 IP addresses.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#262

Post by [deleted] »

usr1106 wrote: post #252
IncRnd wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#263

Post by IncRnd »

usr1106 wrote: post #252
IncRnd wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Still, use of IPv4 does not constitute anti-trust.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#264

Post by usr1106 »

IncRnd wrote: post #263
usr1106 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Still, use of IPv4 does not constitute anti-trust.

Using it doesn't. But having a pool of 200 times more than the next competitor does. I'm not sure whether according to the letter of the law. Courts would decide that a decade later if any administration went to court. But certainly in the spirit of free competition.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#265

Post by Ashaxyn »

Arnavion wrote: post #238
paranoidrobot wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Almost every single old/retro multiplayer game that relies on ipv4 to connect that I've seen. :(

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#266

Post by api »

icedchai wrote: post #257
api wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every device has been updated. We are still lagging because nobody wants to use it.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#267

Post by icedchai »

api wrote: post #266
icedchai wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every device has been updated. We are still lagging because nobody wants to use it.

Yes. I'm saying if we had to update every device anyway, we might as well do it right and not some short term solution (48-bit addressing or whatever.)

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#268

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

sp332 wrote: post #48
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the ipv6 address scary because IP geolocation gives that in the same city district. Cgnat would be better because the server would see ipv4 of the ISP. I don't know, is there a way to not show my ipv6 and fall back on cgnat address because that looks much more secure in terms of not getting doxed and ad tracked.

Sure, just disable IPv6 support in your OS.

apparently android doesnt allow that on wifi so out of luck.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#269

Post by Dagger2 »

mindslight wrote: post #221
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.

IMO it's because they used stupid semicolons in the syntax instead of sticking with periods. Nobody likes hitting the shift key, especially so rapidly and while typing numbers.

Sticking with periods was impossible, because many of the resulting addresses would also be valid DNS hostnames.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#270

Post by kazen44 »

StreamBright wrote: post #105
korethr wrote: post #2

low whistle I imagine they paid a pretty penny for those /12s. A thought comes to me: If IPv6 adoption continues to drag along, and AWS/Azure/GCP continue to expand their IP blocks like this, how quickly are we in danger of the cloud providers effectively being the Internet?

IPv6 is trying to do too much in my opinion. This is partially why adoption is slower than it could be.

in what way?

IPV6 is in many ways a simpeler protocol then IPv4. for instance, it has a significantly simpeler header then IPv4, it does not duplicate the broadcast behaviour of ethernet but relies on multicast instead.

Some parts of IPv6 are complex (mainly, IPsec) but those are not required to get an operational ipv6 network.

SLAAC & NDP are both significantly more simple then ARP and Automatic addressing under ipv4.

Post reply on HN