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

421–430 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#421

Post by xorcist »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #387
xorcist wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apart from being very far apart time wise, I don't think the examples are relevant. IPv6 was nothing like that. In several ways, IPv6 is more simple than IPv4. It has constant header size (simplifies routing), the layer busting ARP was reworked into special case of ICMP, global routing rules was vastly simplified (routing table takes less space even if addresses are much larger). And it's telling that during the past twenty years, no one has come up with a more practical deployment scheme.

You can criticize IPsec and mobile IP which was tacked on to the spec. But starting from scratch, a core IP v6 stack is easier to implement than a v4. The TCP parts is downright nasty in comparison.

Most importantly, IPv6 was developed in the open. IETF is the counter example to design-by-committee. That's true today, and that was doubly true twenty years ago.

Every discussion since them mostly concerns resurrecting old ideas about either impractical extensions (misusing port numbers and flags to extend addressing, none of these schemes have been proven practical), more efficient address space allocations (which would have bought us a couple of years, at most) or various ways to tunnel traffic in backwards compatible ways (which is what we did back when 6bone was a thing, but which is not useful anymore).

The mailing lists are completely open. You can join any one of them today, and people did. You can still follow how the discussions went in the archives. Hopefully no one has suggested that IPv6 is the best we can do, but that the process still works and that anyone capable and interested is welcome to attend.

As to whether the industry's obsession with complexity has faded, I bring you Kubernetes.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#422

Post by janc_ »

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.

ISPs in Belgium implemented IPv6 a decade ago (some even two decades). ISPs elsewhere could have done it too by now (nobody is still using 10+yo hardware, I hope...).

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#423

Post by Symbiote »

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…

In the UK in the 1990s, all landlines phone numbers were prefixed with a 1, to create space for mobile phones and do on.

Other changes were made in the early days, like the introduction of dialing, then long distance dialing.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#424

Post by janc_ »

simiones wrote: post #323
ta1243 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ipv6 has been around for nearly 30 years. > Any solution to the 4->6 transition that assumes that all devices of some class (be it clients, servers, or middleboxes) moved to IPv6 at once is deluded and would not work. 464xlat allows communication from ipv6 only clients to legacy ipv4 ones without the need for a separate stack on your end device nat46 allows communication from a legacy v4 device to a modern v6 device…

> 464xlat allows communication from ipv6 only clients to legacy ipv4 ones without the need for a separate stack on your end device > nat46 allows communication from a legacy v4 device to a modern v6 device without the need for a separate stack on your end device How does that work if your ISP doesn't support IPv6? Can an OS developer deliver IPv6-only OSs to any end user? How about v4-only VPNs? Ultimately the answer…

If your ISP doesn't support IPv6 today, you should have switched to a competent ISP years ago.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#425

Post by janc_ »

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…

In some countries almost everybody already did it. The way they did it is by starting 15-20 years ago, and making sure every new replaced device supports it.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#426

Post by lmm »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #210
lmm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 It's a dumb post, to the point I think it must be a deliberate troll. The parts that are possible don't solve any relevant problems ("my ne…

> It's a dumb post, to the point I think it must be a deliberate troll. Lol, I'd like to send this to DJ Bernstein, let him know that random Internet commenter thinks that one of his most well-known essays "must be a deliberate troll." Glad HN doesn't support emojis, not enough facepalms it the world for this one.

I think that precisely because I don't think he's dumb enough to write a post like that sincerely.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#427

Post by kristopolous »

Qwertious wrote: post #363
kristopolous wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, but this isn't theoretical. ipv6 was finalized 25 years ago and global adoption is around 1/3. There's something seriously wrong and it's not that 2/3s of the world are using Windows Me and 20+ year old devices that don't support it. It's human and behavior driven and addressing that is a matter of packaging, process, promotion, product, presentation... all those marketing ps.

Nitpicking, but it looks closer to 1/2: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Also it's increasing at ~5% a year, so in 12 years it'll be at ~104%.

Interesting. I guess it depends on how it's measured. I had just searched "adoption rates" and saw it said 1/3.

China is a laggard again here. I earlier saw that they were the largest windows xp holdout left. Sure it's only. 0.5% but many places are down to 0.1.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#428

Post by 22c »

greyface- wrote: post #347
22c wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked, the smallest blocks for sale are class C. I also don't think there are many places willing to announce your ultra specific route because it's not great for routing tables.

> class C You can also acquire and use a /24 out of a class A or B block, thanks to this newfangled thing called CIDR. ;)

Eh sorry I meant a /24 not specifically a class C

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#429

Post by 22c »

RockRobotRock wrote: post #203
22c wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked, the smallest blocks for sale are class C. I also don't think there are many places willing to announce your ultra specific route because it's not great for routing tables.

I think a colo would be happy to announce your /24, wouldn't they?

A /24 sure, but GP was asking about buying a single IP address.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#430

Post by TheHappyOddish »

x86x87 wrote: post #21
TheHappyOddish wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speak to the local RIR[1]. They have varying requirements, but broadly you generally need to justify your use case, multi-home (for your own AS) and pay a yearly membership fee. After that, you need to speak to your ISP about either advertising it or peering with you - or going dark fibre if you're a real masochist. Good luck, update us if you do it! 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Internet_registry

Yeah usually you won't be able to buy one if you don't have your own AS

In my area, the AS is usually provided 'free' with your membership.
Post reply on HN