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

451–460 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#451

Post by welterde »

cornholio wrote: post #444
welterde wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tunnel IPv6 over IPv4 (which is how the very first deployments worked). And I think 6to4/6rd worked pretty to close to what you suggest: Each IPv4 gets assigned a block of IPv6 space which gets tunneled over IPv4.

> I think 6to4/6rd worked pretty to close to what you suggest: Each IPv4 gets assigned a block of IPv6 space which gets tunneled over IPv4 No. Tunnels encapsulate IPv6 traffic but they need to be set up, I need to know a gateway that is willing to take my traffic, decapsulate it and place it on the IPv6 internet. There are many reasons this is bad idea, it won't ever scale, it's fragile etc. 6rd doesn't improve thing…

Windows actually used to have 6to4 setup by default in the past. There is no need to manually configure anything since the 6to4 have a globally unique anycast address and the ipv6 space is just derived from the own IP address. Of course NAT breaks that if used on some box behind the router (also would break your proposal I think?) and there were a few issues with 6to4 (random people running gateways? who deals with abuse?) that lead to the development of 6rd (and which was used by a few fairly large ISPs).

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#452

Post by orangeboats »

bradley13 wrote: post #156
qingcharles wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet is built on what is called version 4 of Internet Protocol, which when they designed it allotted 4Bn total IP addresses. Each device on the Internet would be able to have one IP and 4Bn would be more than enough for the whole of Planet Earth. Fast forward a couple of decades and everyone needs 10 IPs each. You have your phone, your laptop, your work computer, your TV, your door lock, your door bell camera…

And the people who designed IPv6 designed a beautiful, perfect protocoll that was incompatible with the old IPv4 protocol. Which meant that a graceful, gradual shift to IPv6 was impossible. Cheap IoT devices are still being manufactured that support only the old protocol.

Oh boy do I have a great news for you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(network_protocol)

Some IoT devices are now IPv6-required.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#453

Post by orangeboats »

bradley13 wrote: post #157
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fast forward a couple of decades and everyone needs 10 IPs each. You have your phone, your laptop, your work computer, your TV, your door lock, your door bell camera, your thermostat, etc. Your phone perhaps, but the rest of these devices never need a public IP address.

The purity of IPv6 doesn't want NAT. Therefore, yes, all of those devices are supposed to have public addresses. We can debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but that is the way IPv6 is supposed to work.

We should abandon the very idea of "public" and "private" addresses. An IP address is just an IP address, a globally-unique number that identifies a networked device. If you want a device to be inaccessible by other devices, throw in a firewall. NAT is just a firewall with packet-modifying capabilities anyways.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#454

Post by [deleted] »

jedberg wrote: post #50
jandrese wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have some misconfiguration on your local network. It's hard to tell from your description, but I'd guess maybe you don't have the firewall rules configured for IPv6 or something. Breakage is extremely rare on the live web. I can't remember the last time I found a website that was only breaking on IPv6.

> You have some misconfiguration on your local network I’m sure I do. But that’s sort of the point. I only use standard commercial hardware with the default config. If that doesn’t work out of the box, what chance does someone who doesn't have my decades of networking experience have in fixing it? Granted I’m probably more sensitive than most because I know what network issues look like. Most people probably just thi…

[deleted]

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#455

Post by azernik »

cornholio wrote: post #440
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 No. The NAT64 hack involves intercepting the DNS requests and rewriting the IPv6 packets in flight so that the IPv6 only clients see outside IPv4 hosts as IPv6. Among many issues, it breaks any end-to-end encrypted protocol that includes IP literals, such as FTP and SIP. Also, NAT64 presents no immediate benefit to a client upgrading in a IPv4 only environment, since it still doesn't…

1. If you want the solution of IPv4 packets being a subset of the address space of IPv6, your options are rather limited in regards to tampering with the original packet. IPv4 hosts can't deal with the larger addresses of any IPv6 hosts they're talking to.

2. Of course there's no immediate benefit for IPv4 clients - there isn't in your proposal either! It's a compatibility measure, allowing IPv6-only clients to talk to IPv4 servers. (I make that distinction because under no scheme can an IPv4 host initiate a connection to a host with no IPv4 address.)

3. I have no idea what you're talking about with the idea that NAT64 requires IPv4 clients to talk to each other over an IPv6 subsegment. I suspect you're thinking of a different transition technology solving a different problem. NAT64 provides a virtual IPv6 subnet containing the entire IPv4 address space. IPv6 clients can send packets to this subnet, at which point they are routed to the nearest NATting gateway and passed into the v4 internet after packet rewriting.

4. FTP and SIP containing IP literals is an irreducible incompatibility, which cannot accommodate an address size change without intrusive packet rewriting anyway.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#456

Post by orangeboats »

gemstones wrote: post #39
throw0101b wrote: post #7

IPv6 Excuse Bingo: * https://ipv6bingo.com

These are some very compelling bingo items - I’m not sure if sharing this card is having the intended effect (unless you wanted me to continue to think that IPv6 isn’t ready for real use?)

>IPv6 isn't ready for real use

Tell that to 45% of the Internet.

Also, half of the bingo items there are intentionally humorous, and if you are taking those items literally (I wouldn't be able to tell, you never listed them out) - congratulations, you are part of the bingo :)

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#457

Post by epolanski »

Macha wrote: post #322
epolanski wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that they are limited, but that doesn't explain why are they sought after? Essentially, how are they better than IPv6 addresses?

Only approximately 45% of clients support IPv6. Clients that don't support IPv6 can't talk to IPv6 servers. Depending on your target market, that might be as high as 70% (India, France) or as low as 0.2% (several african countries). Today most of these devices will have some form of IPv4 connectivity, though it's often through NAT, which is slower and problematic for P2P like games. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv…

Thank you for the short but clear explanation.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#458

Post by commandersaki »

welterde wrote: post #441
dataflow wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're picking a brief and vague 1-sentence summary he wrote, and missing everything that came after it that explained in detail what he's talking about. > What else could he have meant with "In other words: The current IPv6 specifications don't allow public IPv6 addresses to send packets to public IPv4 addresses." He could've meant "making IPv6 work means much more than upgrading software . Every administrator of a…

I have read all of it and I don't agree with you. But lets roll with your interpretation. Adding the address to the server is the easiest part of the whole process. Upgrading the software is probably the biggest hurdle with people just hardcoding things to 32-bit left and right (and some badly designed APIs which do either IPv4 or IPv6 but not both in a transparent fashion). And next is actually setting up ipv6 conne…

> Adding the address to the server is the easiest part of the whole process. Upgrading the software is probably the biggest hurdle with people just hardcoding things to 32-bit left and right (and some badly designed APIs which do either IPv4 or IPv6 but not both in a transparent fashion). And next is actually setting up ipv6 connectivity.

Funny, because the reality is that the software has for the most part been written and the hard part is acquiring v6 addresses. The problem is it isn't just a matter of acquiring a v6 address, it's also supporting the software that the v6 address runs on, and having it work the exact same way as v4.

    The answer is that I'm actually talking about a huge number of IPv4 sites. There's nothing special about my site. When the same situation is repeated at N sites, the code is written only once, while the trivial requests and the trivial configuration changes are repeated N times.
    .
    .
    .
    Well, I'm looking at a much larger group of users, and most of them aren't putting even five seconds into IPv6. They have better things to do. If the IPv6 configuration isn't automatic, it won't happen.
> So why not go for the inverse approach for new servers? Only give the servers IPv6 addresses and for those servers that still need to be reached via the public IPv4 internet (most internal ones probably have no need of this) can be accessed via SIIT, which performs stateless mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 (for example IPv4 1.2.3.4 gets translated to IPv6 2001:db8::1.2.3.4 and vice versa).

I'm unfamiliar with SIIT, but I bet it doesn't get us closer to the "magic moment" or we would be flocking to IPv6 addresses:

    The magic moment for IPv6 will be the moment when people can start relying on public IPv6 addresses as replacements for public IPv4 addresses. That's the moment when the Internet will no longer be threatened by the IPv4 address crunch.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#459

Post by crest »

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...

Deploy IPv6 and stop grumbling because all the workarounds you spend decades perfecting aren't required anymore.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#460

Post by throw0101c »

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.

> AFAIK, IPv6 adoption is held back by hardware.

What hardware, especially ASICs, do not support wire speed IPv6 and have not for a decade or two?

T-Mobile was gave a presentation on going IPv6-only in 2017:

> For the past 10 years T-Mobile has worked towards creating an IPv6 environment and we are now getting very close to our goal. Stephan presents learning on how to successfully enable IPv6-only using DNS64 with or without 464XLAT. He will do a live demo of the different IP interfaces on an Android handset. Finally, he will discuss and give some best practices on how to handle DNS, applications, and websites that are having issues with DNS64.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE

So they started in 2007.

Whatever ISP you're with has probably had at least 2-3 tech refreshes in which IPv6 hardware has been available.

For the CPE, Free in France had IPv6 in 2007:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_rapid_deployment

Post reply on HN