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

271–280 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#271

Post by mindslight »

Dagger2 wrote: post #269
mindslight wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DNS names already conflict with v4 addresses, and we deal with that ambiguity just fine.

For an actual conflict, someone would need to be using hostnames that had at least 16 segments, none of which were longer than 4 characters. Putting the burden on someone who wants to use extremely deep hostnames that look like bare IP addresses to type a trailing . on their hostname seems plenty reasonable to me. And if they want to use resolv.conf:search while still typing in 16 segments of a hostname, then that ambiguity could be resolved with a leading period.

I suspect the real reason is people who wanted to be able to write ad-hoc parsers using strchr().

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#273

Post by lillecarl »

kazen44 wrote: post #172
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…

> (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). in modern (last 10 - 15 ish years) routing table size has been roughly the same for IPv4 and IPv6. Modern, ISP grade routers have control and forwarding planes seperated between different (usually redundant) hardware c…

> in modern (last 10 - 15 ish years) routing table size has been roughly the same for IPv4 and IPv6.

Really? I see 700k routes v4 and 70k v6 routes.

IPv6 will keep routing table size smaller since they can preallocate HUGE subnets to every AS (AS is what people would call an ISP pretty much) so that they only have to split their subnets by geolocation.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#274

Post by jbrzozowski »

ninkendo wrote: post #249
jaywalk wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast doesn't do CGNAT, and their network has been 100% IPv6-capable for years now.

They don’t give IPv6-capable cable modems to everyone. I don’t have one.

Every modem provided by Comcast supports dual stack broadband and IPv6 only for management by default. The latter is transparent to customer and is for internal use only. IPv6 only for management has no impact on dual stack broadband. If your modem is in bridge mode (Wi-Fi router functionality disabled) then you need to ensure that your broadband router supports IPv6 specifically DHCPv6 for the acquisition of IA-NA and IA-PD.

HTH,

John

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#275

Post by kazen44 »

lillecarl wrote: post #273
kazen44 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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). in modern (last 10 - 15 ish years) routing table size has been roughly the same for IPv4 and IPv6. Modern, ISP grade routers have control and forwarding planes seperated between different (usually redundant) hardware c…

> in modern (last 10 - 15 ish years) routing table size has been roughly the same for IPv4 and IPv6. Really? I see 700k routes v4 and 70k v6 routes. IPv6 will keep routing table size smaller since they can preallocate HUGE subnets to every AS (AS is what people would call an ISP pretty much) so that they only have to split their subnets by geolocation.

i should probably clarify.

what i meant to say was, that in modern routers, IPv4 and IPv6 theoretical routing table size can be the same. There is no difference in terms of maximum routes in the routing table between both protocols.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#276

Post by kazen44 »

Ashaxyn wrote: post #265
Arnavion wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :(

is this not trivially fixable by running software that tunnels IPv4 into ipv6 between hosts who want to play multiplayer? I have seen some implementations of IPX which work by tunneling IPX inside IPv4.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#277

Post by lillecarl »

kazen44 wrote: post #275
lillecarl wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in modern (last 10 - 15 ish years) routing table size has been roughly the same for IPv4 and IPv6. Really? I see 700k routes v4 and 70k v6 routes. IPv6 will keep routing table size smaller since they can preallocate HUGE subnets to every AS (AS is what people would call an ISP pretty much) so that they only have to split their subnets by geolocation.

i should probably clarify. what i meant to say was, that in modern routers, IPv4 and IPv6 theoretical routing table size can be the same. There is no difference in terms of maximum routes in the routing table between both protocols.

I should've read your comment more thoroughly, I'm sorry.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#278

Post by manquer »

icedchai wrote: post #151
manquer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No corporate IT would have firewall setup to allow every computer to be routable from the internet. So practically a globally addressable IP or not makes no impact on ability to be routable publicly

In the 90’s, this set up (public IP everywhere) was very common. I remember working in a couple offices with no firewalls.

90s were a different time for the internet, even till right after dot com bubble being online was relatively safe, many companies would not even have had dedicated InfoSec teams, no audits and compliance processes were covering firewalls etc

I maybe biased, I grew up in the 90's so I dont' really know how it was before, I do hear people reminisce about days before eternal September and bb groups and the good old 80's so perhaps it is always been a downward gradient as more and more people came online.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#279

Post by IcePic »

sigstoat wrote: post #216
IcePic wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course that is how it will end. Noone thinks that this is a bad idea, to only allow customers of those three to host a service, because that is the current mindset. When they own all the v4 ips, we will have no choice but to hot on their infra or not host at all. At that time, someone might think that IPv6 with all its faults might have been a good idea after all, but then it will be too late, since "v4 seems to w…

> When they own all the v4 ips ... there won't be any value in them any more. if the only folks left who can use IPv4 are the hosting providers ("big three" or not), then nobody will be using using IPv4 to contact all the hosted services. large swaths of users have IPv6 available to them. if there starts being some inconvenience to not having 6, we can be sure adoption will pick up even faster. https://www.google.com…

>> When they own all the v4 ips >... there won't be any value in them any more.

and upto that point, it will be SUPER expensive for you to try to get one (or 256), which they can pay since they have monopoly on them, and you only needing one can't.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#280

Post by [deleted] »

jbrzozowski wrote: post #274
ninkendo wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t give IPv6-capable cable modems to everyone. I don’t have one.

Every modem provided by Comcast supports dual stack broadband and IPv6 only for management by default. The latter is transparent to customer and is for internal use only. IPv6 only for management has no impact on dual stack broadband. If your modem is in bridge mode (Wi-Fi router functionality disabled) then you need to ensure that your broadband router supports IPv6 specifically DHCPv6 for the acquisition of IA-NA a…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN