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

361–370 of 372 posts

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

#361

Post by hamandcheese »

jldugger wrote: post #346
Jowsey wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, I just _love_ how out of touch the American tech industry is from the rest of the world.

Me too, pays the bills =) My point is, if 20k/month motivates you, Silicon Valley has hundreds of thousands of people in that category. And by many perspectives, they are underpaid. Really, I'm just saddened by how out of touch the rest of the world is on the subject.

Yes, I'm aware that $20k/month salary is readily achievable SV. But $20k/month to be your own boss is a bit harder to come by.

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

#362

Post by samoa42 »

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/

how does jq solve the problem more elegant/shorter/readable/portable?

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

#363

Post by i_like_to_post »

kortilla wrote: post #354
i_like_to_post wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No they don’t Oh yes they do. > Any time I see IP addresses passed around it’s a sign of broken infrastructure Nope. > It also means you aren’t using tls or you’re training people to accept cert errors So, let me get this straight. You have a server that's behind CloudFlare, and you're claiming we should use DNS and TLS to SSH into it?

I think you’re confused a bit, so let’s split apart the use cases to be clear why IPs are bad in both cases. You said devs and technical staff were typing IPs into their browsers. Presumably this means the address bar, which breaks TLS. SSH derives a big chunk of security from key caching. If you’re using IPs you now can’t have an IP change without triggering key warnings on the SSH clients for a new key at a minimum…

> You said devs and technical staff were typing IPs into their browsers. Presumably this means the address bar, which breaks TLS.

Looks like you got confused. I didn't say that. You just assumed that.

> SSH derives a big chunk of security from key caching.

No, it does not. It is pointless to fill DNS entries for hosts that are supposed to have their IPs hidden behind DDoS mitigation services like CloudFlare. The whole purpose of the exercise is to not leak the IP addresses.

You SSH into your servers via IP, the IP gets cached with the key. There is no difference compared to having a DNS entry, except for the fact that you do not leak the server IP.

> If you’re using IPs you now can’t have an IP change

No one wants IP changes on externally facing hosts. You keep the IP static and if something happens with the server, you just reassign the IP.

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

#364

Post by JacobSuperslav »

vinay427 wrote: post #331
geek_at wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or like a whole degree from bachelor to masters and a 15.000$ car (in Europe)

Good luck paying living expenses for years with only $5k in one of the many European countries that don't generally provide stipends for that. I'm a student in Switzerland where my university recommends more like $2,300 a month.

I know plenty of families living comfortably in Europe for <15k/year. Not Switzerland though.

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

#365

Post by manigandham »

alex_young wrote: post #302
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.

The addressing is exactly why IPv6 isn’t something most ISPs want you to have in your house. Right now blocking a bunch of home servers is easy - just don’t give people addresses. With IPv6 you’ll need to thread that needle some other way or give people access to something that will actually test your advertised bandwidth commitments. Edit: instead of downvoting how about having a conversation? That’s the great thing…

Home servers are already blocked by contract policy and firewalls. What difference does the IP make? You can filter on prefixes too so shutting off your entire IP block is easy.

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

#366

Post by alex_young »

manigandham wrote: post #365
alex_young wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The addressing is exactly why IPv6 isn’t something most ISPs want you to have in your house. Right now blocking a bunch of home servers is easy - just don’t give people addresses. With IPv6 you’ll need to thread that needle some other way or give people access to something that will actually test your advertised bandwidth commitments. Edit: instead of downvoting how about having a conversation? That’s the great thing…

Home servers are already blocked by contract policy and firewalls. What difference does the IP make? You can filter on prefixes too so shutting off your entire IP block is easy.

Sure, they have other tools, but I think most users will be less understanding. NAT seems like a reasonable technological limitation, and filtering for the sake of filtering won’t feel that way.

Besides, why shouldn’t users be allowed to connect to machines on each other’s network without a central gatekeeper in the way?

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

#367

Post by manigandham »

alex_young wrote: post #366
manigandham wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Home servers are already blocked by contract policy and firewalls. What difference does the IP make? You can filter on prefixes too so shutting off your entire IP block is easy.

Sure, they have other tools, but I think most users will be less understanding. NAT seems like a reasonable technological limitation, and filtering for the sake of filtering won’t feel that way. Besides, why shouldn’t users be allowed to connect to machines on each other’s network without a central gatekeeper in the way?

Why would users care? None of the blocking is due to technical issues, it's contractual. IPv6 wouldn't change anything except make it easier for both the ISP and for users who stay within the contract terms.

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

#368

Post by fpig »

guytv wrote: post #212
fpig wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always good for a VPN to deny any information about the customer to a server, I would imagine that's not what was referred to as sketchy. Making a user indistinguishable from a typical user from country X is just the VPN doing its job correctly. It seems, however, that at least some VPN providers use their customers' bandwidth without their knowledge to route other customers through it. I'd say that qualifies as…

Its much more difficult to take this stance when you live in a part of the world where such services are not available to you, just because of your LAT/LNG. Several times already I found myself "wanting" to pay for content, but the only way to get it was by circumventing geoblocking.

Why not pirate it instead?

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

#369

Post by fpig »

leetcrew wrote: post #287
fpig wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always good for a VPN to deny any information about the customer to a server, I would imagine that's not what was referred to as sketchy. Making a user indistinguishable from a typical user from country X is just the VPN doing its job correctly. It seems, however, that at least some VPN providers use their customers' bandwidth without their knowledge to route other customers through it. I'd say that qualifies as…

what's wrong with pirating geoblocked content in this case? if the owner actually believes that piracy == lost sales, this would be a signal that the person might have paid for the content if it were available in their locale.

Maybe my sentence was confusing, I think pirating is fine. (not watch) || pirate

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

#370

Post by fpig »

pc86 wrote: post #330
jonathanlydall wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they have to block you due to law, then sure since it's not their choice. Signing a contract however hardly makes it any less discriminatory. Signing a contract that means you now have to block Armenians is like signing a contract saying you won't allow Armenians into your store or will refuse to sell them stuff.

Just because this type of licensing contract is common in the media industry doesn't make it acceptable. People should just pirate whenever they hit a wall like that.

Post reply on HN