Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IP Addresses Through 2025

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 158 posts

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#61

Post by bigstrat2003 »

autoexec wrote: post #53
Ericson2314 wrote: post #19

Really need governments to start pushing harder on IPv6 adoption. We need sticks, not just carrots. My favorite is chaos engineering forced IPv4 downtime.

Nah, we just need actual carrots. If something new is better than what people currently have, and you make it easy for them to get the new thing, people will naturally abandon the old thing. They'll do it happily. In fact, it will be hard to stop them from abandoning the old thing for the new thing. IPv6 has failed at being better, being accessible, or both. Rather than punish people for failing to adopt something th…

> IPv6 has failed at being better, being accessible, or both.

I don't agree that it has. IPv6 is clearly better (no collisions between address space and thus no NAT requirement), and it's perfectly accessible to anyone who actually tries. I'm not by any means a top tier network guy but even to me IPv6 is dead easy to setup. The problem with the v6 transition is that people have very inaccurate views on one or both of those points (usually they falsely believe NAT provides security benefits, or they falsely believe IPv6 is a difficult thing to implement). I'm not sure how to fix this widespread misinformation but that is the problem from what I've seen.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#62

Post by knollimar »

jdsully wrote: post #52
knollimar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What disgusted you about it? I'm out of the loop

They hadn't bothered to add ipv6 support to most of their services and the ones that did have it usually were only dual stack - still requiring an ipv4 address.

That sounds like a failure in every direction. I see why you moved

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#63

Post by simoncion »

dlcarrier wrote: post #41
Fiveplus wrote: post #17

The collapse in IPv4 transfer prices is what caught my eye here, dropping from a ~$55 peak in 2021 to a mean of $22 in early 2026 (figure 12). This validates my hypothesis that the run-up in 2020–2022 was an artificial scarcity bubble driven largely by hyperscalers. AWS was right up there stockpiling before they shifted their pricing model. Once AWS introduced the hourly charge for public IPv4 addresses (effectively…

As someone with a background in electronics who doesn't manage any internet-connected equipment but has multiple embedded devices connected to a WAN, I'm glad that IPv4 still seems to have a bit of life left in it. When IPv6 was developed, over 30 years ago, connecting everything to the internet seemed like a great idea. I know that IPv6 can be made secure, but I don't have the background or research time to learn ho…

> I know that IPv6 can be made secure, but I don't have the background or research time to learn how to do so, and the NAT-by-default of IPv4 effectively means that I get the benefit of a default-deny security strategy that makes it impossible to accidentally directly connect anything to the internet.

To get the "unsolicted traffic is rejected or dropped" behavior of the typical IPv4 NAT, forward inbound traffic that's related to an established connection and drop or reject the rest.

You can also use the exact same NAT techniques you use for IPv4 addresses with IPv6 addresses. The only differences are that instead of you using RFC 1918 Private Internets addresses (10./8 and friends) you use RFC 4193 ULA addresses (fd00::/8), and you need the usual NAT rules on your edge router, except for IPv6, rather than IPv4. Remember that IPv6 is still IP, just with larger addresses.

It's recommended that you generate your ULA subnet rather than selecting one by hand, but absolutely nothing stops you from choosing fd::/64. If you're statically assigning addresses to your LAN hosts, then your router could be -say- fd::1 and you count up from there. Also note that DHCP exists for IPv6 [0] and is used by every non-toy OS out there except for Android.

> I'm hoping I can keep using IPv4 until IPv8 or IPv4.5 or whatever comes next...

IPvnext is not happening in either of our lifetimes. You're either going to have to buy edge gear that's set up with a "reject or drop unsolicited inbound forwarding traffic" firewall, or learn how to set it up yourself. Either path is not hard. Well, I guess there's secret option #3: "Die without doing either.". That's also not hard.

[0] It has been around for nearly twenty-three years.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#64

Post by TNorthover »

Fiveplus wrote: post #17

The collapse in IPv4 transfer prices is what caught my eye here, dropping from a ~$55 peak in 2021 to a mean of $22 in early 2026 (figure 12). This validates my hypothesis that the run-up in 2020–2022 was an artificial scarcity bubble driven largely by hyperscalers. AWS was right up there stockpiling before they shifted their pricing model. Once AWS introduced the hourly charge for public IPv4 addresses (effectively…

[dead]

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#65

Post by simoncion »

grishka wrote: post #48
chromehearts wrote: post #16

IPv6 will change the world. Believe in it

How many more decades will I have to wait to have IPv6 from my ISP though?

Try switching ISPs. [0] Even Comcast provided me IPv6 service fifteen, twenty years ago.

[0] Yes, I am aware that that's simply not possible for most folks. I used to be most folks, so I definitely know.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#66

Post by kccqzy »

alexinavar wrote: post #27

Unrelated to the post, but please include a viewport tag[0] on your website; it's one line of code that makes things far easier to read on mobile. [0]: ` `

No. You either design the site to be fully responsive (which would necessarily include CSS changes), or leave out that line. If your CSS assumes a desktop layout, it is strictly better not to set the viewport width to device-width so that the mobile browsers will use the traditional desktop viewport and the user can zoom around without anything broken. In contrast, carelessly slapping that line without CSS changes will often lead to content being clipped and invisible on mobile. This is why I have a bookmarklet to delete any viewport meta elements.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#67

Post by bigbadfeline »

blakesterz wrote: post #12

This closes on a bit of a downer: "As the Internet continues to evolve, it is no longer the technically innovative challenger pitted against venerable incumbents in the forms of the traditional industries of telephony, print newspapers, television entertainment and social interaction. The Internet is now the established norm. The days when the Internet was touted as a poster child of disruption in a deregulated space…

> We can but wait and see.

Don't bring technology to a political fight, the hoarders've got more tech than you, "wait and see" is what a bag of sand does at the gun range.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#68

Post by simoncion »

ianburrell wrote: post #56
dist-epoch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But has the nice side-effect of working as a firewall, before traffic gets to you.

IPv6 routers use a stateful firewall just like NAT includes. Just without the problems of NAT.

As a bonus, because most (nearly all?) SOHO IPv6 routers are Linux under the hood, they are also capable of IPv6 NAT.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#69

Post by autoexec »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #61
autoexec wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, we just need actual carrots. If something new is better than what people currently have, and you make it easy for them to get the new thing, people will naturally abandon the old thing. They'll do it happily. In fact, it will be hard to stop them from abandoning the old thing for the new thing. IPv6 has failed at being better, being accessible, or both. Rather than punish people for failing to adopt something th…

> IPv6 has failed at being better, being accessible, or both. I don't agree that it has. IPv6 is clearly better (no collisions between address space and thus no NAT requirement), and it's perfectly accessible to anyone who actually tries. I'm not by any means a top tier network guy but even to me IPv6 is dead easy to setup. The problem with the v6 transition is that people have very inaccurate views on one or both of…

IPv6 primarily solves a problem that most people either don't have ("I have IPv4 IPs already") or don't care about ("I don't know/care what my IP is") and it introduces a bunch of problems people didn't have before like worries over comparability with existing hardware/software (improving all the time) or even just "now I have to spend a bunch of time learning about how to correctly and securely implement this on my network" (still a problem)

Maybe one day in the distant future, IPv4 collisions/shortages will be an actual problem for most people. If that happens, those people will naturally make the switch. Until then, why would they?

It turns out a bunch of people actually like NAT. They like it so much that they pushed for solutions like NAT66 so that they can keep it even after switching to IPv6.

If IPv6 offered substantially better security/privacy, speeds, reliability, or introduced some new killer feature people didn't even know they wanted until they learned about it there wouldn't be any reason to try to force people to move to v6. Because it doesn't do any of that, and most people are happy with IPv4, they'll stick with what has been working for them.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#70

Post by inemesitaffia »

Fiveplus wrote: post #17

The collapse in IPv4 transfer prices is what caught my eye here, dropping from a ~$55 peak in 2021 to a mean of $22 in early 2026 (figure 12). This validates my hypothesis that the run-up in 2020–2022 was an artificial scarcity bubble driven largely by hyperscalers. AWS was right up there stockpiling before they shifted their pricing model. Once AWS introduced the hourly charge for public IPv4 addresses (effectively…

Amazon LEO

Aka Kuiper

>stopped announcing almost 15M addresses in Nov 2025

Post reply on HN