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

381–390 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#381

Post by _JamesA_ »

greyface- wrote: post #345
kxrm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be under the LSRA fee schedule. https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/#legacy-reg... So you won't be subject to the new fee structure. If you want to route then you will need an ASN and an ISP willing to announce them. So long as you are up on your LSRA dues I don't see how you won't be able to utilize them.

You don't need to sign an LRSA to use the prefix; there are some legacy holdouts still using their original prefixes without any agreement or fees with ARIN. Signing an LRSA will give you access to ARIN IRR/RPKI/rDNS/etc services, which can be quite useful, though.

I'm a holdout and have no desire to sign an LSRA.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#382

Post by sambazi »

baby_souffle wrote: post #371
MiscIdeaMaker99 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS supports IPv6. https://aws.amazon.com/vpc/ipv6/

Kinda. 2/3 of their internal services don’t. You can do ipv6 only vpc but not if you wanted to use rds or ecr or …

more like 90% according to

https://awsipv6.neveragain.de/

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#383

Post by supertrope »

commandersaki wrote: post #261
jiggawatts wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These arguments always boil down to these two: "Please just try to fit more than 4 billion numbers into 4 bytes" -- this is mathematically impossible. "Just extend the address size" -- this is an entirely new protocol by the definition of IPv4, which uses fixed-size addresses. The reason for the slow IPv6 adoption is that there was no financial or business pressure. While IPv4 is ubiquitous, nobody individually feels…

Everyone is always quick to complain that we're going through N number of NAT gateways or N number of proxies, but this is virtually never a problem for most of the Internet. Even despite this rats maze of proxies and NAT gateways we're still supporting virtually all the applications that consumers use and love such as VoIP, WebRTC, HTTP(S), DNS, Gaming, Streaming Video, Mobile Apps, etc. NAT seems to always get a ba…

Any kind of application that acts as a server needs a direct IP connection.

Gamers get errors about "strict NAT." Traditionally the solution to this problem caused by NAT was to forward the ports. If their ISPs has chosen CGNAT port forwarding is impossible.

VoIP calls that have one way audio are a symptom of reachability issues caused by a firewall or address translation problems. VoIP services have adapted to IPv4 NAT by relying on proxying instead of STUN but CGNAT really degrades reliability.

Smaller newer ISPs that can't obtain one IPv4 address per household are incurring signicant CGNAT costs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624

Video chat uses the kludges of TURN when peer to peer connectivity does not work. This increases costs for the video chat service who in turn require a paid subscription as they will not relay traffic for free.

BitTorrent and file transfer services need direct IP connectivity. If p2p file transfers worked on any network we would not need to mind Gmail's 25MB attachment limit, or pay for intermediary cloud storage.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#384

Post by sambazi »

codetrotter wrote: post #373
sambazi wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

kind of brings up the question if all apps can do this

Here’s the routing table that the HE.net Network Tools shows for my cellular connection shortly after I’ve turned off WiFi on my iPhone 14 Pro. None of the entries in the cellular routing table is IPv6 with my current SIM card. So I am doubting more and more the claim that iPhone is somehow IPv6 only. Seems more like some people have carriers that choose to provide them IPv6 only, and because of that they think that…

> So I am doubting more and more the claim that iPhone is somehow IPv6 only.

as well you should. the phone has to keep working.

my point was that smartphone ecosystem is ime very well established in the v6 internet and i doubt that any carrier assigns public v4 here.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#385

Post by cdchn »

sah2ed wrote: post #265
cdchn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose a sufficiently motivated individual could look at something like Shodan, see how many of those IP addresses AWS owns are active (and fudge it by some factor to account for how many of those IP addresses are used by AWS themselves) and multiply it by their new IP address billing.

No need to use Shodan. AWS already publishes the IPv4 address it owns in JSON from a well-known endpoint [0]. [0]: https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json

AWS does not publish what IPs are active and assigned IE: customers are paying for vs. addresses they own.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#386

Post by viraptor »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #334
jiggawatts wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These arguments always boil down to these two: "Please just try to fit more than 4 billion numbers into 4 bytes" -- this is mathematically impossible. "Just extend the address size" -- this is an entirely new protocol by the definition of IPv4, which uses fixed-size addresses. The reason for the slow IPv6 adoption is that there was no financial or business pressure. While IPv4 is ubiquitous, nobody individually feels…

Really, IPV6 has failed because of human reasons. I know because almost everyone demonstrably hates it, as evidenced by their behavior. The big issue is that the router vendors hated it, the OS vendors hated it, the programming language people hated it, and the software writers hated it. How do I know? NOBODY WANTS TO ADOPT IT except by force, even now. Worryingly, pro-IPV6 people are consistently arrogant and dismis…

> NOBODY WANTS TO ADOPT IT except by force, even now.

Hi, I've adopted it for many reasons and I'm happy. You'll need to update your count. Seriously though, there's lots of people who adopted it - you'll need some more data for a generalisation like this.

> We have to keep shoehorning apps into 64k ports

With ipv6 you typically get a whole range assigned to your machine rather than a single address. Why expand ports, when you can assign millions of apps to different addresses, with the same port that correctly identifies the service type? As a bonus, this already works with DNS AAAA entries so you don't have to mess with SRV to find the right port.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#387

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

xorcist wrote: post #258
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IPv6 is as backward compatible as is possible within this constraint. Yikes, couldn't disagree with that more. There are a ton of things that ipv6 designers could have done to make the transition much easier. This is a (now quite old) blog post that is my "go to" that explains a lot of the problems with ipv6: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html FWIW I couldn't find the link to that post until finding it on one of…

It's not like people didn't think of that when IPv6 was discussed. It was something like a decade from when the first IPng proposals came to when the proposals which looked like today's IPv6 came. Bernstein was certainly part of that discussion, at the later stages, and the document you link to reflected that. It was just one of many counter proposals that influenced what became IPv6. Some people seem to suggest that…

> It's not very useful to come 20 years later and re-hash the exact same discussion all over again.

I'm not complaining as if to say "yeah guys, let's stop the ipv6 rollout and do ipv10" or whatever. But I think it is useful to see why the problems of ipv6 came about. A great comment from one of the linked HN threads said "ipv6 was a product of it's time", a time (I put it at mid 90s to mid 00s) when there were a ton of over-complicated, over-engineered specs that were designed by committee. Some examples:

1. XML, and all its complexities and incompatible versions (I still have some PTSD from some Java XML version incompatibilities), vs. what the industry discovered to be the much simpler and now much more widely used JSON.

2. The insanity of SOAP vs. something like REST.

3. The original Enterprise Java Beans spec. Feel like "'nuff said" is good enough here, what a nightmarish shit show that was.

Thankfully I think the industry has largely learned its lesson when it comes to valuing simple even if imperfect specs. But I still totally disagree that "ipv6 is the best we could have done".

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#388

Post by SSLy »

sambazi wrote: post #384
codetrotter wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the routing table that the HE.net Network Tools shows for my cellular connection shortly after I’ve turned off WiFi on my iPhone 14 Pro. None of the entries in the cellular routing table is IPv6 with my current SIM card. So I am doubting more and more the claim that iPhone is somehow IPv6 only. Seems more like some people have carriers that choose to provide them IPv6 only, and because of that they think that…

> So I am doubting more and more the claim that iPhone is somehow IPv6 only. as well you should. the phone has to keep working. my point was that smartphone ecosystem is ime very well established in the v6 internet and i doubt that any carrier assigns public v4 here.

I have two carriers, one assigned v6 only, another is dual stack. My route file is much more complicated, but it might be related to both Wi-Fi calling and VoLTE.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#389

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

dataflow wrote: post #375
welterde wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not how can we enable IPv4 C talk to IPv4 S, since that already works. The problem is how would C (ipv4-only) send a packet to S (ipv6-only) in the first place? It doesn't know how to deal with non-ipv4 packets, since it's ipv4-only. Thus if the server does not have a IPv4-address how does a IPv4-client send packets to it? The inverse situation (IPv6-only client but IPv4-only server) is not really an iss…

> The problem is how would C (ipv4-only) send a packet to S (ipv6-only) in the first place? It doesn't know how to deal with non-ipv4 packets, since it's ipv4-only. If S is IPv6-only, then either the address is from the IPv4 range, or it's not. If it is, then R can translate between them. If not, then they can't connect. I don't see him suggesting otherwise anywhere. Even ignoring translation possibility, his point h…

Thank you thank you. I feel like this primary point in the post got lost it some of the strawmen of "There is just no way an ipv4 stack could talk to an ipv6 address!"

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#390

Post by GoblinSlayer »

jiggawatts wrote: post #167
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...

These arguments always boil down to these two: "Please just try to fit more than 4 billion numbers into 4 bytes" -- this is mathematically impossible. "Just extend the address size" -- this is an entirely new protocol by the definition of IPv4, which uses fixed-size addresses. The reason for the slow IPv6 adoption is that there was no financial or business pressure. While IPv4 is ubiquitous, nobody individually feels…

Technically address space can be expanded with a reverse proxy like SOCKS5: connect to NAT over ip4 and pass target address or even domain name.
Post reply on HN