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

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#71

Post by themafia »

simoncion wrote: post #63
dlcarrier wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think you even need a stateful firewall. If it's an IoT device that's not meant to provide services to the internet then it seems to me you can just drop all non local subnet originated traffic and get most of the security you would expect with NAT.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#72

Post by billyjobob »

My ISP added IPv6 support and my router began handing out IPv6 addresses. How did I know this?

1. My AppleTV began stuttering during playback.

2. My old iMac began crashing every time it connected to the wifi.

At least the iMac has an option to disable IPv6. The AppleTV has no such option so I had to do it in the router.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#73

Post by JulianHart »

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…

The CGNAT point is underrated. Carriers have zero incentive to move away from it - thousands of users per public IP, no transition cost.

The interesting downstream effect is on IP reputation systems. Traditional detection assumed 1 IP = 1 user. CGNAT breaks that entirely - platforms can't aggressively filter mobile carrier IPs without blocking legitimate customers by the thousands.

Makes sense the IPv4 price dropped once mobile networks proved you can serve massive user bases with relatively few public addresses.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#74

Post by WorldMaker »

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…

> efficacy of mobile CGNAT

At driving the majority of mobile traffic to IPv6? Otherwise, it seems hard to describe mobile CGNAT as efficacious to me.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#75

Post by RiverCrochet »

dist-epoch wrote: post #44
shmerl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is the monstrosity, not IPv6.

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

- Did you disable UPnP on your router? If not, any device behind the router can simply ask the router to open a port, typically without authentication, bypassing this "firewall" completely.

- TURN and STUN trivially bypass this side-effect, and a side effect of that is a third party has to often be involved, which can be collecting data later leaked or used against you.

- The monstrosity of NAT is that it's the core thing that drives centralization - because of NAT any two Internet hosts generally have to involve a third party to communicate, a third party which again, can be collecting data later leaked or used against you.

If you don't care about the security implications of the above, then you don't really care about the "firewall" either.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#76

Post by fpoling »

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…

Even 15 years ago IPv6 was much worse than IPv4 for most of the people. Only when the mobile operators has started to insist on it then the usage started to grow to significant numbers. Which showed the real problem with IPv6: lack of compatibility with IPv4. That was absolutely possible 30 years ago, but the designers decided that it would just complicate things.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#77

Post by landl0rd »

rendx wrote: post #4
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #2

The real story here is China and India have been quietly buying up gobs of African IP blocks - most of which are used for botting operations. I see it in my server logs. China already de-facto owns half of Africa so it's natural they would prey on their scarce IP resources as well. When you see AI scraping at a massive scale originating from $AFRICAN_COUNTRY IP space, and that country's GDP is smaller than Rhode Isla…

I see this often that people refer to countries as actors. Are you implying that the government of these countries bought those resources and they're now owned by the government? Or are you saying that citizens/corporations of those countries are buying? I find it weird, I wouldn't use the phrase "The United States is buying XYZ" unless it was the current government doing so?

China does not have a meaningful distinction between private industry and the state. She also maintains a level of surveillance and control, particularly in the IT world, that makes this hard with some level of government sanction.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#78

Post by tredre3 »

johnisgood wrote: post #50
zorpner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It provides no benefit, so even the smallest amount of added complexity or additional engineering effort required isn't worthwhile.

I did not have to put any additional engineering effort into it though.

Because in your own words what you built is "a shitty self-hosted website", not a complex web of distributed services that need to talk to each-other.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#79

Post by wcfields »

JulianHart wrote: post #73
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…

The CGNAT point is underrated. Carriers have zero incentive to move away from it - thousands of users per public IP, no transition cost. The interesting downstream effect is on IP reputation systems. Traditional detection assumed 1 IP = 1 user. CGNAT breaks that entirely - platforms can't aggressively filter mobile carrier IPs without blocking legitimate customers by the thousands. Makes sense the IPv4 price dropped…

Anecdotally on how this affects the day to day user experience: I just deployed T-Mobile 5G Business Internet to a temporary pop-up art space (it's only active for a few months) and I'd say twice daily I get a CAPTCHA challenge on Google search.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#80

Post by patmorgan23 »

JulianHart wrote: post #73
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…

The CGNAT point is underrated. Carriers have zero incentive to move away from it - thousands of users per public IP, no transition cost. The interesting downstream effect is on IP reputation systems. Traditional detection assumed 1 IP = 1 user. CGNAT breaks that entirely - platforms can't aggressively filter mobile carrier IPs without blocking legitimate customers by the thousands. Makes sense the IPv4 price dropped…

Expect CG-NAT boxes are expensive, and introduce another point of failure into the network. Most mobile carriers are running IPv6 first networks these days anyway.

Like you said, CG-NAT does have the benefit of making v4 address reputation less reliable, which means it's not as big a deal for the transition to v6.

Post reply on HN