Live data from Hacker News

MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

whois.arin.net

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#81
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 solves mAAAAny issues. DNS issues causes MAAAAny more. I dAAAAbble in v6 here AAAAnd there AAAAnd the situAAAAtion is still pretty dire.

The question is, will people get the joke?

Only people that could have anything approaching a opinion about ipv6 worth listening to.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#83
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 solves mAAAAny issues. DNS issues causes MAAAAny more. I dAAAAbble in v6 here AAAAnd there AAAAnd the situAAAAtion is still pretty dire.

Guy who manages a two-dozen site v6 network with tens of thousands of clients here. What issues are you referring to?

Yeah if you want to make a cname for yourself in this field you'll have to bring your AAA game.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too bad. I think universities should make these resources that they've been granted available to students and researchers. They are... indirectly. MIT can do far more to assist students and researchers using the money they raise by selling off IP addresses than they can by holding on to the addresses in case 16 million students all decide that they want to host their own podcasts.

I don't think MIT needs any more money. Universities are often endowed with special assets that others organizations are not. Yes, universities should dole out as many IP addresses as students want. Where else will students get an opportunity to build something with that infrastructure? Maybe the university could use their infrastructure to create a non-profit ISP that serves some underutilized market. If I were endo…

MIT may not need more money, but I guarantee you there are people there who could do something productive with a grant. Many more than can do something productive with 1000 public IP addresses anyway.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#85
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"carve out some IPv6 space from my Linode and tunnel it to my home network." I'm planning on doing exactly this using openvpn as my transport (because I already have an extensive ipv4 openvpn system). Has anyone tried it? I'm not interested so much in how to do it, which I think I know, but in anecdotes along the lines of "it makes openvpn crash" or "linode told me I was being abusive and cut me off" or whatever. I'v…

I tunnel all of my traffic through my Linode. I had to disable ipv6, because I was getting constant captcha checks from facebook, cloudflare, and google. No matter how many different ipv6 addresses I tried, traffic is always marked as suspicious. As soon as I disabled ipv6, everything went smoothly.

This sounds like CloudFlare etc have just blacklisted hosting provider IPv6 blocks, as there a real easy way to get millions of "clean" IPs priced by the hour.

CloudFlare etc certainly dont do this with SiXXS IPv6 addresses, or any traditional residential provider I'm aware of.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#86
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPV6 solves this, plus even without you don't need anything close to this amount of IPs to do what you're describing. It's a fairly niche case to need that many public IPs and it seems a little crazy to hold that many just in case some researcher might want to use them. Even your comment about streaming, seems like mainly nostalgia vs reality as you kind of admit. Any modern streaming infrastructure works from behind…

IPv6 solves mAAAAny issues. DNS issues causes MAAAAny more. I dAAAAbble in v6 here AAAAnd there AAAAnd the situAAAAtion is still pretty dire.

Very hAAAArd to rAAAed - even having troubling remembering whAAAt you just sAAAAid...

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#87
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPV6 solves this, plus even without you don't need anything close to this amount of IPs to do what you're describing. It's a fairly niche case to need that many public IPs and it seems a little crazy to hold that many just in case some researcher might want to use them. Even your comment about streaming, seems like mainly nostalgia vs reality as you kind of admit. Any modern streaming infrastructure works from behind…

I've tried to run IPv6 on my Comcast connection. Unsurprisingly, Comcast doesn't get the point of IPv6. They allocate one single IPv6 address to my router. That's right, ONE. LOUSY. ADDRESS. This seems to be a "feature" of owning your own modem rather than renting one of theirs. I hesitate to even try to get this fixed via their tech support. I guess if I want IPv6 connectivity, I'm either going to have to get a tunn…

I have Comcast and get a range. It may be a regional thing or your setup is just wonky.

Granted, I have business class so that I don't violate their ToS by hosting stuff and to get a dedicated IP.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#88
post #72
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guy who manages a two-dozen site v6 network with tens of thousands of clients here. What issues are you referring to?

They answered that question 6 times in their comment.

If you can't access IPv6 enabled sites, you can't access Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, or Netflix, who all enabled IPv6 permanently in 2012[1]. According to [2], around a third of US has IPv6 connectivity. If AAAA records constitute some big problem, it's not well known.

1. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1

2. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#89
post #5

My how things change. At one point in the late 90s, I had an entire MIT Class C subnet at my house. Now, I've got 5 static IPs from Verizon FiOS on some ancient grandfathered plan. Years ago, they "changed" the addresses, prompting me to ask, "what part of 'static' is not clear?"

I still remember the day that happened to us. It was a Friday and not only did we lose data but our phones were VoIP so no clients could get through to use either.

I spent much of the day troubleshooting with their support before I figured out to ask them to tell me what five static IPs they have listed for us in their system. Turns out they changed with no notification and even their internal people didn't know. Spent more time trying to get our old IP addresses back as some of our vendors had IP restrictions and some of our partners accessed one of our internal servers. That turned out to "not be possible" so spent Monday filling out forms to update to the new IPs everywhere else.

I think I still have one of their senior VPs cell phone numbers in my phone from the late calls that night including a couple while I was having a party at my house.

Re: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8

#90
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No friend of mine is on ipv6. No mobile phone I've seen supports ipv6. Having an ipv6 prefix is useless to me (as someone that is behind the abomination called CGNAT / 'Dual Stack Lite').

> No mobile phone I've seen supports ipv6. T-Mobile LTE has been exclusively IPv6 on most phones for some time now. I'm pretty sure other mobile providers have done the same or are in the process of doing so. All my Android devices have supported IPv6 as long as I've had it running on my network. I don't have an iOS device but since T-Mobile sells them I assume they work with IPv6.

> I don't have an iOS device but since T-Mobile sells them I assume they work with IPv6.

My iphone works perfectly with T-Mobile's ipv6 network -- it gets a v6 address of its own and also anyone who tethers to it also gets v6 address.

Post reply on HN