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

471–480 of 480 posts

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#471

Post by _8j50 »

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…

"this is an entirely new protocol by the definition "

NO!!!

this is what the parent comment meant about ipv6 design. Add an octet and that's it. Same protocol with same rules just a bigger address.

It may be a different version of IP but the protocol and supporting protocols like ARP and DHCP just need to support the new IP.

The reason IPv6 failed is the same reason why when new devs join a team, they find how everything is wrong and try to fix it all and leave a bigger mess than what they started with. You solve problems one step at a time. Overhauls are only justified when your objective is specifically to improve the whole system.

"The reason for the slow IPv6 adoption is that there was no financial or business pressure."

That is only part of the reason. The other part is it is a pain to use, there is no way to use it without also supporting v4 and on top of that you have to learn and adapt other new protocols, addressing schemes, gotcha's and much more.

Just add a freaking octet!

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#472

Post by Tijdreiziger »

nerdbert wrote: post #433
Dobbs wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a really nice chart, thanks for sharing. What is confusing me is the Netherlands. We only have about 13% adoption. I'm on one of the largest ISPs KPN and get 10/10 on IPv6 tests. Is this because I use a custom router? I'd expect it to be a lot higher since apparently KPN supports IPv6.

Ziggo has also rolled out IPv6 to all its customers so far as I know. They have about 40% of the market.

So I decided to do a bit of research:

* VodafoneZiggo has 40-45% of the home market, but also 25-30% of the business market and 20-25% of the mobile market [1]. They seem to offer IPv6 on their home and business connections, but not on their mobile connections [2, 3, 4].

* KPN (35-40% home/biz, 25-30% mobile): IPv6 for homes (except older modem types) and mobiles, but not by default for businesses [5, 6].

* Odido [ex T-Mobile] (30-35% mobile, 5-10% home/biz): no IPv6 across the board [7, 8].

* Eurofiber (20-25% biz): has IPv6 [9].

* Delta (5-10% home): no IPv6 [10].

* Unspecified smaller ISPs (0-5% home/biz, 10-15% mobile): unknown.

* Finally, a number of wholesale access providers, where the customer presumably has a say in IPv6 support.

This works out to 75-90% IPv6 in homes, 45-60% in businesses (ignoring wholesale) and only 35-45% for mobiles.

So, the mystery is not solved, because this data still doesn’t support Google’s 13% figure…

[1] https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/autoriteit.consument....

[2] https://www.ziggo.nl/klantenservice/internet-wifi/ipv6-bij-z...

[3] https://community.ziggo.nl/t5/Internet/Instellen-ipv6-zakeli...

[4] https://community.vodafone.nl/t5/Archief/IPv6-op-mobiel/td-p...

[5] https://www.kpn.com/service/internet/ipv6.htm

[6] https://zakelijkforum.kpn.com/internet-bellen-9/ipv6-werkt-n...

[7] https://community.odido.nl/bekabeld-internet-492/ipv6-wannee...

[8] https://community.odido.nl/netwerk-en-verbinding-559/wanneer...

[9] https://www.eurofiber.com/nl-nl/snel-internet

[10] https://www.delta.nl/klantenservice/vrije-modemkeuze/, expand ‘stap 4’

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#473

Post by Retric »

lxgr wrote: post #435
Retric wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT works well as an ultra simple firewall. All those ancient IoT devices don’t need to accept traffic from arbitrary addresses, but they may need to communicate with the outside world. Using a firewall is obviously an option, but why give an IP to something you don’t want accessible by the outside world?

> NAT works well as an ultra simple firewall. There's something that works even better as an ultra simple firewall: An ultra simple firewall! > why give an IP to something you don’t want accessible by the outside world? - You might change your mind about it needing to be accessible by the outside world, and if it already has a global address you don't need to renumber everything. - Addressing and routing aren't the s…

Ultra simple firewalls that expose your internal network architecture are less secure than NAT. You simply cannot information about your internal network without risk and there’s zero direct benefit for doing so.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#474

Post by fuy »

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…

it's probably been mentioned before, but there are customers that require IPv6 (like some US gov agencies and others), so for a lot of B2B/enterprise software companies it actually makes sense to support ipv6. And it's technically interesting, so why not! (I've been there, and it was fun)

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#475

Post by crest »

rewmie wrote: post #275
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem isn't ipv6 (even with the tons of extra features that ipv6 forces upon you) The year is 2023, The chromium engine is full blown operating system, it has notifications, background task management, GPU acceleration for general compute, it's larger than Windows XP, and can in fact run windows XP in the browser. Teams consumes 500 mb of ram to do the same job ICQ did in 2002 with 5 mb of ram. Cars have 4G,…

> But Ipv6 features take a few extra bytes and are a problem. Some people pay for each extra byte they have to send through a network, and design whole systems around the goal of minimizing the amount of data they ship around. No one pays for the extra free gigabyte that Chrome takes over.

The user pays for it or suffers the consequences. Anyone relying on such bloated browsers has externalised the cost for coming up with a resource efficient alternative to their users.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#476

Post by crest »

stock_toaster wrote: post #252
elsjaako wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say ipv6 was supposed to get rid of NAT. Can you explain why it doesn't? You then say the problem was built into ipv6 from the start. From looking it up it looks like it's mostly required when IP's change (e.g. when you change ISP), which for me is more of an argument to use DNS if you want fixed addresses.

One reason could be the proliferation of prefix delegation, meaning an ISP now controls the numbering of your internal network, and it keeps constantly changing the net block, so you can never get stable local addressing… so you just keep running dual stack or try to use nat66 with a ULA network as a kludge or something.

The only in theory clean alternative to the kludges you mentioned is to let DHCPv6 renumber your network automatically which is a major change in how you have to think about your network.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#477

Post by GoblinSlayer »

throw0101c wrote: post #460
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Maybe my ISP bought T-Mobile's ip4 hardware. Since DNS supports ip6, it suggests software is fine, the only thing left is hardware.

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#478

Post by janc_ »

tsimionescu wrote: post #462
janc_ wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This whole discussion was about what should have been done differently at the start of the IPv6 rollout to help it complete in less than a lifetime, not about the situation some decades in.

But that's what I mean: lots of ISPs have supported IPv6 for 1-2 decades. Most hardware & software already supported it a decade ago, and nobody should be using anything that old without updates. The only reason for an ISP today to not provide it is incompetence.

Two decades ago I was a member of a ISP consumer group, and we discussed it with a couple ISPs back then. They all were working on a planning for it (one smaller ISP even already implemented it back then!). Apparently in other countries ISPs were allowed to behave irresponsibly.

Really, the only way to force such incompetent ISPs out is if governments get involved, or if all/most backbone providers and IX operators set a date where IPv4 will become very expensive, and then one where it will be switched off...

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#479

Post by sambazi »

paulsutter wrote: post #256
jiggawatts wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In practice IPv6 is for mass market ISPs and IPv4 is for servers. Wasn’t the intention, but that’s how it is to a first order approximation There are billions of phones so sure, they should be on ipv6. ipv6 is a kind of super NAT that few people bother to learn Sorry about that ipv6 committee

> ipv6 is a kind of super NAT that few people bother to learn

true, for now.

sometime it will reverse and i am exited about what will happen in/with the "legacy internet"

Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B

#480

Post by nerdbert »

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #472
nerdbert wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ziggo has also rolled out IPv6 to all its customers so far as I know. They have about 40% of the market.

So I decided to do a bit of research: * VodafoneZiggo has 40-45% of the home market, but also 25-30% of the business market and 20-25% of the mobile market [1]. They seem to offer IPv6 on their home and business connections, but not on their mobile connections [2, 3, 4]. * KPN (35-40% home/biz, 25-30% mobile): IPv6 for homes (except older modem types) and mobiles, but not by default for businesses [5, 6]. * Odido [ex…

Their data must just be out of date. It's been over a year that I've had IPv6 with Ziggo business and home. As you say, Vodafone mobile still only does IPv4 though.

The Ziggo shift would have made a huge impact on the national total.

Post reply on HN