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

321–330 of 372 posts

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

#321

Post by ttul »

ancarda wrote: post #294
crispyporkbites wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does- imagine an email server that can’t send/receive email from everyone with an email address. At best it’s broken at worst it’s not an email server

By that logic, basically nothing supports IPv6. There's nothing that prevents email from working over IPv6. The sender and receiver just need to have IPv6 connectivity. Every email provider that supports IPv6 will also support IPv4 (for the time being). To use Gmail as an example: aspmx.l.google.com. 293 IN AAAA 2a00:1450:400c:c0b::1a aspmx.l.google.com. 293 IN A 173.194.76.27 There is both an A and AAAA record. You…

Yes, you must have an IPv4 address for your mail server for the foreseeable future unless you want to only be able to send to IPv6 receivers.

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

#322

Post by detaro »

i_like_to_post wrote: post #319
detaro wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't imagine there are other reasons for difficulties in replacing a core component of the internet other than "longer numbers are harder to type"?

IPv6 was released in 1995 -- that's 25 years ago. If it didn't suck, don't you think we would have forgotten about IPv4 by now. Or do you also have many devices around running Windows 95?

You claimed one specific issue with it, you don't get to play the "but it has other problems too!" (it indeed does) card now. It being badly designed in some ways is indeed part of the "other reasons".

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

#323

Post by mdaniel »

nerdponx wrote: post #166
marcan_42 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lazy ISPs. Servers won't go IPv6-only until most users have IPv6. This it's on providers to take the initiative to deploy IPv6. Some have. Some have not. For example, approximately nobody has IPv6 in Spain. It's one of the countries furthest behind in dual-stack adoption. This is entirely the fault of Spanish ISPs. ISPs won't be forced to deploy dual stack IPv6 until IPv6 only servers are commonplace, and IPv6 only s…

This. I have Comcast Xfinity in the USA (local monopoly, I would use a different ISP if I could) and they just don't offer IPv6. The rep on the phone seemed surprised that I would even ask.

Surely you mean static IPv6, because of the 3 different cities I've been forced to use Xfinity (even on their lowest plan Internet), I have been given IPv6 leases and I for sure didn't call anyone

Or, another certainly plausible explanation is that your router either doesn't support IPv6 or it is disabled

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

#324

Post by [deleted] »

detaro wrote: post #322
i_like_to_post wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 was released in 1995 -- that's 25 years ago. If it didn't suck, don't you think we would have forgotten about IPv4 by now. Or do you also have many devices around running Windows 95?

You claimed one specific issue with it, you don't get to play the "but it has other problems too!" (it indeed does) card now. It being badly designed in some ways is indeed part of the "other reasons".

[deleted]

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

#325

Post by icedchai »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #198
AdamGibbins wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> o far we haven't made use of it though as it's still a bit tricky to find providers that will announce your addresses (without asking a hefty amount of money for it). Vultr can do so https://www.vultr.com/features/bgp/ for no additional cost.

Thanks! I'm aware of them, but you need two peers to be able to announce your IP space (multi-homing requirement). AWS actually also allows you to bring your own IPs, so we might indeed go Vultr+AWS for now.

This is untrue. You don't need multi-homing to announce IP space.

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

#326

Post by icedchai »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #285
histriosum wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think the multihoming requirement works like that. Either Vultr or AWS would fulfill it, as they each certainly would be advertising the block out several redundant ISP paths, thus fulfilling the multihoming justification...

Nope, RIPE really requires two different ASNs / peering partners on their ASN application form.

You don't need your own ASN to announce IP space. The upstream can do it for you.

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

#327

Post by toast0 »

blueblisters wrote: post #162

What are the reasons for slow IPv6 adoption a whole two decades after notification by IETF? I am assuming the demand for IPv4 address blocks is mainly driven by backwards compatibility requirements.

There was a long period of chicken and egg problems: no IPv6 users, so no IPv6 services, so no IPv6 users; that's over now, there are enough users and services (even if they're mostly CDN frontends) to justify turning on IPv6 as a service or a user, although maybe not enough to require IPv6 as either.

The other reasons are all about the difficulty of the change. IPv6 is not an incremental update to IPv4. There's a ton of changes that are just totally different. Arp is replaced by ICMPv6, dhcp is mostly replaced by slaac, but dhcpv6 was added later, header processing is different. All that means, it's a good bit of work to get IPv6 to run as well as IPv4, and chicken and egg issues made it hard to justify doing the work, and hard to verify the performance.

Finally, work towards making transition easier was only started much later than the protocol design. Making it easy to use, and easy to switch to should have happened during design. Things like continuing to use ARP for IPv6 would have been simple (arp is extensible), and reduced implementation work, and gotten things moving quicker. OTOH, you would be stuck with ARP forever, instead of ICMPv6, but it doesn't seem like a big difference to me.

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

#328

Post by i_like_to_post »

detaro wrote: post #322
i_like_to_post wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 was released in 1995 -- that's 25 years ago. If it didn't suck, don't you think we would have forgotten about IPv4 by now. Or do you also have many devices around running Windows 95?

You claimed one specific issue with it, you don't get to play the "but it has other problems too!" (it indeed does) card now. It being badly designed in some ways is indeed part of the "other reasons".

In other words, you realized you lost the argument and now you're just salty. okay.

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

#329

Post by cranekam »

topranks wrote: post #257
cranekam wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Running a datacenter" isn't something that inherently needs its own IP range. You could run a datacenter only in private address space and NAT to the internet (though this wouldn't really be very practical) or even run in private space. My point is that having a lot of computers doesn't _necessarily_ require getting public IPs or ASNs. You need public addresses if you want to be publicly reachable. If you're small y…

While what you suggest is possible it’s amature and fraught with problems. Any halfway serious company that wanted to run a global application on their own infra is gonna need their own ASN and internet presence with their own IP space.

You can split hairs however you like on when one needs their own allocation. That wasn’t my point — I was just trying to illustrate to the parent poster (since they seemed uncertain) how internet routing works at a basic level and why decisions over IP space aren’t necessarily a concern for “running a datacenter”. Perhaps I took this remark too literally and I hope the parent commenter forgives me if that is the case.

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

#330

Post by pc86 »

jonathanlydall wrote: post #252
pc86 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the vast majority of geoblocking due to regulations, legislation, or contract agreements? That hardly qualifies as "discrimination."

It's left over from a time before distribution over the internet was practical, when middle-men added value (local promotion, collection of royalties, etc) to video distrubution. The internet made them largely redundant, but they still had their contracts and pushed to have things like geo-blocking to maintain their "local monopoly" arrangement. When legal options are not readily available to me due to geo-blocking,…

I'm not arguing in favor of geographic blackouts, I'm arguing against them being "discrimination" by any sensible definition of the word. Nobody's sitting in an office somewhere trying to decide which sitcoms to block to most piss off the Armenians.
Post reply on HN