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

391–400 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#391

Post by ta1243 »

thelastparadise wrote: post #294
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.

One such use case: multi wan routing. Would you rather have a bunch of routers sending out advertisements which every client needs to sort out, or have one consistent multi wan load balancing/failover policy that is transparent to clients?

IPv6 purists think that you can simple have multiple IP addresses on each client, all configured magically, and reconfigured transparently when your ISP changes, with every device somehow knowing via some form of policy deployment (perhaps via dhcpv6) which network to use for a given flow.

That's so much simpler than simple src-natting your clients at the edge of your control and routing your outgoing traffic based on a policy at your natting device /s

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#392

Post by forty »

dale_glass wrote: post #348
forty wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It seems useful to hide details of your private network from everyone

You can do that with the privacy extensions. Plus on IPv6 you should get enough address space that it makes no sense to run a scan against anyone. On IPv4 or NAT there's just 65535 ports to check. On a /48 with privacy extensions there's 2^80 addresses to go through, which from an external point of view don't remain constant. You can't even ping all of that.

As a end user, my inbound ports are all closed, and I don't care about scanning. But I don't see why everyone should be able to differentiate traffic from my phone from traffic from my laptop so I'm happy that they use the same public IP to connect outside.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#393

Post by minimaul »

jedberg wrote: post #380
minimaul wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I agree with you, this is a great assessment. And of course I'm in group two. I'm sure it's the router's fault, but other than IPv6 it works great, so there isn't really much reason to change it or dig into it. I'll just wait until I actually need v6 and then worry about it.

And, each group is probably an order of magnitude smaller than the one before it - nearly everyone just uses their ISP's router.

A small number of people use routers you can buy from Amazon, or in a store.

A really tiny number of people use more professional equipment at home.

The problem is, most IT professionals fall into one of the smaller two groups, so they get more friction than others, and that leads to them having more reluctance to roll out v6 at work, etc.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#394

Post by GoblinSlayer »

throw0101c wrote: post #349
azernik wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly how NAT64 works, and still doesn't solve the problem of IPv4 clients trying to connect to servers with only IPv6 addresses. The backwards incompatibility is irreducible, inherent to the special place of Layer 3 in the networking stack.

> This is exactly how NAT64 works, and still doesn't solve the problem of IPv4 clients trying to connect to servers with only IPv6 addresses. You also have to deploy new DNS code to handle a new record type to handle longer "IPv4+" addresses. You also have to deploy new OS and library code with new socket, etc , APIs because all in_addr_t definitions and data structures are 32-bit-only.

AFAIK, IPv6 adoption is held back by hardware. My ISP doesn't provide IPv6, but its DNS provides IPv6 addresses just fine.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#395

Post by GoblinSlayer »

thelastparadise wrote: post #293
cornholio wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There would be no NAT box holding IP-port mappings in its internal memory, with the related timeouts, flakiness, port clobbering etc. and no packet re-writing. All routing decisions would be static, based on information in the IP header: the legacy outside routers would just examine the legacy part of the IP address and packet, while the internal IPv4.1 would use the extended bits. So just like any packet routing…

It sounds nice on paper but typically we don't want unsolicited packets to reach internal hosts. Yes, NAT is not a firewall --yet we don't see admins eager to put random lan hosts in the DMZ or enable UPnP.

Is UPnP really unsolicited?

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#396

Post by GoblinSlayer »

Sesse__ wrote: post #341
yrro wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget you may need to opt in to get mapping to work. It's not available by default on all platforms. If you're unlucky you'll also have to sacrifice a goat to appease the JVM gods. JVM behaviours vary hugely across implementation, version and underlying platform. Not to mention the short sighted decision made by many sysadmins to disable IPv6 completely...

Sure, that's one line and then you're done. And only if you care about very old (WinXP) or deliberately obnoxious (OpenBSD) platforms.

WinXP implements sockaddr_storage from RFC 2553 - a sufficiently large generic socket address.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#398

Post by GoblinSlayer »

commandersaki wrote: post #287
superluserdo wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even despite this rats maze of proxies and NAT gateways we're still supporting virtually all the applications that consumers use That's a tautology: "Despite the limitations of IPv4, we're still supporting all the applications that can work within the limitations of IPv4". Lots of potential P2P applications (that might solve a lot of problems with have with the current centralised model of the internet) either don't…

> I think there would be many more that wanted this if it were trivially easy to do I've seen figures from proponents of Future Internet Architectures such as Named Data Networking claim that consumption is about 80% of Internet traffic. The truth is not everyone needs a Internet addressable host, mobile phones for example don't. And well, we're living in this situation today with CGNAT and you don't hear complaints…

Mobile phones can use a p2p messenger like tox, then they will need to be addressable.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#399

Post by greyface- »

_JamesA_ wrote: post #381
greyface- wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd recommend creating an IRR route object for your prefix and ASN on AltDB (or finding a sponsor to do so on your behalf). Once you have that in place, you should be able to announce it without issues, without any ARIN involvement. Growing adoption of RPKI filtering may make this increasingly difficult in the future, though.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#400

Post by SamuelAdams »

jasekt wrote: post #138
mbgerring wrote: post #118

We should probably consider whether the rent-seeking enabled by the scarcity of IPV4 addresses is one of the things holding back IPV6 adoption.

EU have enough influence to do to IPV6 what it did to USB in iPhones.

Actually the US gov’t adopted a policy last November to migrate all services to ipv6 by 2025. So the USA might have some weight in the migration.

https://www.ferc.gov/internet-protocol-version-6-ipv6-policy

Post reply on HN