Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

toonk.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#301

Post by growse »

rini17 wrote: post #248
growse wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're inventing a new addressing scheme, and proposing that we put a bunch of middleboxen in to mediate connecting the old world to hosts on this new addressing scheme. You're re-inventing IPv6.

No, I describe existing practice with NAT where you in fact have IP addresses extended by TCP/UDP port numbers. You could instead move this "port" directly into IP header in backward-compatible way and fall back to stateful NAT only if the counterparty does not support it.

A device that doesn't understand your newly invented addressing scheme would need to rely on some other intermediate device in order to get traffic to an endpoint that does support your new scheme.

You're using different words, but you've got a separate addressing scheme, and dependence on proxies to enable everyone to talk to each other. This is exactly where we are with IPv6.

> You could instead move this "port" directly into IP header in backward-compatible way

If you're changing the meaning of the headers, it is by definition not backwards compatible.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#302

Post by elsjaako »

ta1243 wrote: post #237
elsjaako wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say ipv6 was supposed to get rid of NAT. Can you explain why it doesn't? You then say the problem was built into ipv6 from the start. From looking it up it looks like it's mostly required when IP's change (e.g. when you change ISP), which for me is more of an argument to use DNS if you want fixed addresses.

The existence of NAT66 and NPTv6 are proof that there is still a need for NAT in an ipv6 environment. Maybe not in your environment, but people wouldn't make these solutions if there wasn't a need.

There's obviously a need, I didn't deny that. I'm not arguing for ipv6, I just want to learn.

The uses that I found while searching weren't very convincing, I was hoping you could give an example.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#304

Post by [deleted] »

elsjaako wrote: post #302
ta1243 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of NAT66 and NPTv6 are proof that there is still a need for NAT in an ipv6 environment. Maybe not in your environment, but people wouldn't make these solutions if there wasn't a need.

There's obviously a need, I didn't deny that. I'm not arguing for ipv6, I just want to learn. The uses that I found while searching weren't very convincing, I was hoping you could give an example.

[deleted]

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#305

Post by minimaul »

jedberg wrote: post #50
jandrese wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have some misconfiguration on your local network. It's hard to tell from your description, but I'd guess maybe you don't have the firewall rules configured for IPv6 or something. Breakage is extremely rare on the live web. I can't remember the last time I found a website that was only breaking on IPv6.

> You have some misconfiguration on your local network I’m sure I do. But that’s sort of the point. I only use standard commercial hardware with the default config. If that doesn’t work out of the box, what chance does someone who doesn't have my decades of networking experience have in fixing it? Granted I’m probably more sensitive than most because I know what network issues look like. Most people probably just thi…

I think there's largely three groups that home users fall into here:

1. people who just use the router their ISP provides

2. people who go and buy off the shelf consumer routers/wifi - eg Netgear, Linksys, TP-Link

3. the kinds of people who run home labs and use small/medium business targeted routers/wifi like pfSense, VyOS, Unifi, Mikrotik, or even things like Juniper SRXes etc.

The first group will get a 'blessed' and hopefully well tested IPv6 configuration when their ISP rolls it out, and I'd expect minimal problems there. Certainly haven't noticed anything big in the UK with some of our biggest ISPs rolling out v6.

The third group will inevitably have teething troubles, but v6 works okay on those kinds of platforms once you know how to configure it, from my experience.

The second group is where a lot of the pain will sit, imo. I've found consumer routers have really bad IPv6 implementations (things like broken prefix delegation, broken firewalling that can't be changed, IPv6 negotiation not working over PPPoE, weird RA settings, etc). The firmware on these kinds of devices is usually not great, and things like hardware acceleration engines in router CPUs are also frequently missing acceleration paths for v6 for things they already accelerate for v4. It will get fixed eventually, but it's going to be a pain point for a lot of years to come.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#306

Post by gemstones »

growse wrote: post #247
tsimionescu wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the claim is that, IF IPv6 had been a much more minor modification of IPv4, including just a change to the packet structure to have a larger address field, it would have seen more adoption more rapidly than the current version of IPv6 which also changes everything else about the L2-3 stack. Sure, you would have still needed new devices and that would have taken some years, but as long as the network archite…

> which is the only thing people actually wanted from IPv6. I'm not sure this is true. There's a lot of warts in the way IPv4 was put together (ARP is a tire-fire of badness for example), and the opportunity was taken to implement those in a better way. Lots of network engineers are very happy about that.

Good thing they can benefit from those changes, now that we’re decades in! Can you imagine if they had to manage ARP still?

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#307

Post by Macha »

pantalaimon wrote: post #262
stock_toaster wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason could be the proliferation of prefix delegation, meaning an ISP now controls the numbering of your internal network, and it keeps constantly changing the net block, so you can never get stable local addressing… so you just keep running dual stack or try to use nat66 with a ULA network as a kludge or something.

You can have multiple IPv6 addresses on your interface, so you can have both the ULA address for internal use as well as the global address - no need for NAT

However, the priority order on your OS for address selection, even when it comes to stuff like choosing which DNS results to use is IPv6 global address > IPv4 > ULAs. So on a dual stack network, ULAs with not be used unless the only address is a ULA.

And even if you run your internal services with only an AAAA record pointing to the ULA, the client's source address will likely be the global address of the client device unless you tweak the tables on each client, which then means you'll need to have your global address in all your firewall rules to access the internal services on ULAs, which then means you're not saved from having your ISP-provided global address in your configuration, which is what you were trying to avoid by using ULAs.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#308

Post by raincole »

bradley13 wrote: post #93

Can we go back in time and hit the designers of IPv6 upside the head? The decision not to make IPv6 backwards compatible, the belief that a beautiful new standard could magically replace something already so widespread... "Naive" is an inadequate word. We are still futzing with the transition 3 decades later, with no end in sight. Grrr, grumble...

Yes, if we hit our heads hard enough we can come up with a way to magically put more than 4B addresses in 32 bits. Math and logic don't matter in the real world, only head-hitting does.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#309

Post by Macha »

azernik wrote: post #286
rewmie wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Ipv6 features take a few extra bytes and are a problem. Some people pay for each extra byte they have to send through a network, and design whole systems around the goal of minimizing the amount of data they ship around. No one pays for the extra free gigabyte that Chrome takes over.

This concern about an extra few bytes is substantial in approximately zero organizations' IPv6 adoption decisions.

In fact some of the earliest adopters of IPv6 were Google, Microsoft, Netflix. Companies who when you're considering the problem of (N * a few bytes) have a very large N so are the most likely to have material costs from it. Yet even to them, it's a rounding error.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#310

Post by voxadam »

oefrha wrote: post #285
raverbashing wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what happened to everything that expected 1.1.1.1 to error out and now is getting something? (not worried about them, just curious)

Yeah it broke my use case. I used to run `curl --retry 9999 http://1.1.1.1 ` and since it didn't exit, the heat generated by the running curl process kept me warm in the winter. But now http://1.1.1.1 returns immediately, so I'm freezing!

You're obviously a fellow fan of 1172.[0]

[0] https://m.xkcd.com/1172/

Post reply on HN