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

401–410 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#401

Post by dataflow »

renewiltord wrote: post #254
dataflow wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That document has been going around for ages and is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients. Let me summarize my understanding of what he's saying, because I don't quite see why/how you disagree. I think you (or I) might be misunderstanding his claim. Imagine this topology: C (client, IPv4-only) R (intermediate ro…

In this scenario, R sends packets to S over IPv4 only. So S must have an IPv4 address? If S has an address that is larger than 32 bits, what goes in the "destination IP" field in the IPv4 packet that R is capable of sending? If S has an address that is guaranteed to be less than 32 bits then we're just in the IPv4 world. How are R and S negotiating when R cannot even name S on the network? Its stack only allows for 3…

See my reply here, I think it addresses your question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37556857

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#402

Post by _JamesA_ »

greyface- wrote: post #399
_JamesA_ wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for the information.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#403

Post by dataflow »

butlerm wrote: post #342
welterde wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That document has been going around for ages and is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients. This is just not possible. Most of the other criticism is not relevant anymore, since we now have a lot of transition technologies that allow IPv6 clients to interoperate with IPv4 servers (this way around is possible since…

That document is not a proposal, it is a problem statement. It goes without saying that IPv4 only clients - every single one of them - would need to be upgraded in some fashion to support a larger address space. The issue is how to do that while remaining incentive compatible. The only way to remain incentive compatible is to remain administratively compatible, and that is where IPv6 as presently constituted fails dr…

This is a really nice explanation, especially with the phone number analogy, thanks for writing it.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#404

Post by plumeria »

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…

> The IPv6 transition will be like a bankruptcy: very slowly, slowly, then all of a sudden.

That's a fresh alternative to the boiling frog metaphor.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#405

Post by azernik »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #394
throw0101c wrote: post #349

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. 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.

Any hardware router introduced in the last two decades has IPv6 support; in my somewhat outdated experience the barrier to implementation is implementing dual-stack logic in software built for single stack.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#406

Post by azernik »

Macha wrote: post #309
azernik wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concern about an extra few bytes is substantial in approximately zero organizations' IPv6 adoption decisions.

In fact some of the earliest adopters of IPv6 were Google, Microsoft, Netflix. Companies who when you're considering the problem of (N * a few bytes) have a very large N so are the most likely to have material costs from it. Yet even to them, it's a rounding error.

Pedantic note:

For Netflix the cost is actually especially low. Cost as a percent of bandwidth is (a few bytes / packet size), and when you're streaming enormous media files packets are almost always max size.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#407

Post by leoh »

keep_reading wrote: post #397
leoh wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you use for?

I have 5gbit fiber from ATT and self host all my services

What sort of stuff do you do to make sure those are services hardened? And what kinds of services? I've been meaning to create such a setup, but am a bit concerned about vulnerabilities.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#409

Post by Sesse__ »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #396
Sesse__ wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But not mapped-v4 sockets; it has independent IPv4 and IPv6 stacks. In any case, hopefully we don't need to write code for it anymore…

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#410

Post by welterde »

tsimionescu wrote: post #370
welterde wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. A typical enterprise might get allocated a /32, which gives them 32-bit to nicely design their network and give 64-bit to each individual network where devices are connected. A typical ISP will get allocated a much larger allocation like a /20, which allows them to allocate a /56 for each of their customers while still having a few bits to play with. But all starting with the same prefix. With IPv4 you will ha…

Your initial claim was that a IPv6 address consists of a 64-bit network address, then a 64-bit device address that could be separated into : as an example. However, SLAAC demands that each device is given a 64-bit prefix that it then chooses many random 64-bit host addresses from, without any other rhyme or reason. So, if you want to know the IP of a host you want to connect to, you have to remember at least a 64-bit…

No it was not. My claim was that the network address part (the first 64-bit) can be separated into ::.. etc.
Post reply on HN