Live data from Hacker News

AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

github.com

41–50 of 283 posts

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#41
post #3
post #2

low whistle I imagine they paid a pretty penny for those /12s. A thought comes to me: If IPv6 adoption continues to drag along, and AWS/Azure/GCP continue to expand their IP blocks like this, how quickly are we in danger of the cloud providers effectively being the Internet?

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

I've had a static ipv4 address on a home internet connection for almost 10 years, now. They're out there...

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#42
post #9

Who the heck has a couple /12s and a /13 just lying around unused? And there are even some earlier pickups of two /10s: 252.0.0.0/10 and 44.192.0.0/10. Wow.

Look at who still has their assigned /8. Gonna be funny how well likely live to see ipv6 run out of ip space leading to ipv8! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_addre...

Oh, google doesn't own 8/8

At least for 8.8.8.8 they need to update thier POC

> ARIN has attempted to validate the data for this POC, but has received no response from the POC since 2019-10-24

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#43

IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6. Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.

I actually think that what will really drive IPv6 adoption is if the price of IPv4 space continues its upward trajectory unabated. The price has about doubled at auction in the last year.

How are those two things related?

1. There are a ton of owners sitting on inefficiently used IP space.

Any company (not doing cloud hosting or network transit) that's holding a /8 is almost certainly using it very inefficiently, but an owner like Apple will never feel financial pressure to optimize or sell their /8. However, an owner like the university I went to (with a /16 network currently worth $3 million) will eventually face internal pressure to sell that network when the value rises to say $50 million.

As another example, Yahoo is currently announcing subnets containing 4.3 million IPv4 addresses, which is worth $193.5mm at auction. If the price of IPv4 addresses increased by say 10x, their IPv4 space would probably comprise the bulk of the company's value.

2. Owners will need to adopt IPv6 in order to realize these financial gains.

In order to sell a significant portion of their IPv4 space, an owner will have to compact their IPv4 usage into a much smaller space and migrate everything else to IPv6. This will be a huge undertaking for a lot of these places, but at some point it's worth it. By doing that, IPv6 adoption increases.

There is the potential for a feedback loop to be created where demand for IPv4 drops and the prices decline and so fewer conversions are done, but I tend to believe that IPv4 pricing will remain inelastic.

So basically the invisible hand of the market may guide us to IPv6, but I highly highly doubt we will have seen the last of IPv4 even decades from now.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#46
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly prudential is the one that stuns me. They’re an insurance company! Why do they need all those?!

They probably got a /8 early and gave each regional office their own /16, so they'd have to unpick all the addresses they're currently using before they could sell off any.

I'm sure they could split it into /16s and sell off the empty ones.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#47
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

> WThe nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. No issues? So, how are people supposed to be able to access your machine then?

I usually used Teamviewer.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#48
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

I find the ipv6 address scary because IP geolocation gives that in the same city district. Cgnat would be better because the server would see ipv4 of the ISP. I don't know, is there a way to not show my ipv6 and fall back on cgnat address because that looks much more secure in terms of not getting doxed and ad tracked.

Sure, just disable IPv6 support in your OS.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#49
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

Problem with CGNAT is the costs involved in bookkeeping for law enforcement. Where an IPv4 solution for your clients only needs change-logging on IPbinding-to-client level, the CG-NAT requires you as an ISP to log every outgoing IPv4/port combination with timestamp to client mapping. Which requires A LOT more storage and much more expensive equipment. Going rate per IPv4 is up to $40 nowadays, selling of your v4 bloc…

Disclaimer: I work with this stuff and might be a little biased to certain vendor solutions.

A good CGNAT implementations have support for static blocks: the subscriber always ends up a a specific ipnumber+portblock combination. (Each subscriber is assigned a specific number of exit ports and this all just logged once during startup so you always know where each subscriber ends up).

Should they run out of their assigned portblock, there are pools which you can borrow from (these need then to be logged who borrowed at what time etc). So all in all there is less logging than when everything was dynamic.

Re: AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses

#50
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess there's a large pool of IP addresses used by residential ISPs that could be recycled relatively easily. When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks. Those IPs being recycled for…

> WThe nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it. No issues? So, how are people supposed to be able to access your machine then?

Via the mentioned public IPv6 address
Post reply on HN