New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
so, how much staff do they have, 8million? I doubt that.
Apple does also NOT host anything themself - It all runs via Edgecast.
Hmm? iTunes + iCloud.
Apple has 150 acre site in North Carolina, its a massive facility and also their facilities on the West coast. They have massive amounts of servers.
y would terrorist group need tht much ??
What happened to 127.0.0.0/8 other than the well known 127.0.0.1?
HP has a /7.
127.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.0 –
127.255.255.255 16,777,216 host Used for loopback addresses to the local host, as specified by RFC 990.
Looks like human planning to me that we ended up with ipv4 shortage and ipv6 lack of implementation. Other folks would call it the will of god, lol.
Does localhost loopback really need that many?
Resolves both to Edgecast for me in Austria, also iTunes login.
Sure, Apple hosts data behind that themself (in their own DCs even) - But not at public IP space.
I use to work IT at Computer Sciences Corp. Big IT contractor worldwide with huge government contracts in the US, UK and Australia. That being said I was on their "20-net" and 99% of that ip range was unused, but own and manage a lot of datacenters. They are just one of those fortunate companies that were around and doing government work back in the beginning of the Internet.
Honestly, Why the f**k would the US postal service need an /8? (56.0.0.0/8)
970 IPv4's left.
Actually, Apple (or some other tech giant like IBM or MIT) would be smart to give their /8 back, and at the same time announce a full transition to IPv6. The problem with IPv4 is that every step seems to make the addresses more valuable. Someone needs to take a forward-thinking step that will completely crash the market and instead make them almost worthless. Because, in the long term, that is what will eventually happen.
Ford is definitely using them. Just because they aren't announced on the public Internet doesn't mean they aren't in use.
Doesn't really matter who has them and who doesn't. What will happen is that the low cost IPv4 VPS's will start to disappear as the datacentres that own the IPs will jack their prices.
If you can imagine giving away /24 for $1/IP/month thats $256/month. Now dice that up into /29's and use that for 32 dedicated servers thats a lot more interesting.
Offering $1/month VPS and $15/year using IPv4 is not going to be viable long term because those IPs can be used for more profitable services.
Why can't they use RFC-1918 addressing?
I mean... I sort of understand the DoD defense, them and their retarded as balls policy of 1 ip = 1 computer, but Ford? Really?
Come again, they would be smart to randomly "give back" 160 million USD for free?
Give'em tax cuts.
Yes, we need federal tax cuts for clean, sustainable IPv4 addresses.
They'd call it iProtocol
Naw... That was their old nomenclature; now it would be called Apple Protocol.
Why should the US tax payer have to subsidize this?
Once there is a sufficient financial incentive for them to renumber (sell) the space on the open market, they will do it.
The days of going to ARIN for more cheap space are over, except the first few people on the waiting list who will probably get whatever comes in from IANA.
It would be a major undertaking for them to renumber out of the space, so there would have to be a pretty significant financial incentive for them to do it. Everything there uses space on their /8. They interface with a lot of suppliers and they don't want conflicts with other suppliers use of RFC 1918 space.
The /8 they have costs them very little to maintain, since it was assigned pre-ARIN. Until the value of selling the space exceeds the costs to renumber, probably in a significant way, it won't move the needle with companies like Ford who have a lot of space.
Not like they pay much tax anyway.
It's certainly not easier, and it's unlikely to make any make much of anything cheaper. I don't see many providers just up and dropping their IP revenue stream.
If you cut them a check to cover the cost of re-designing and re-numbering probably large swaths of their network . . .
Because it's not money any of those big organization can realize themselves (and pretty much a drop in their buckets, too). And, like I said, compare it to the leadership value of saying "Come on, we should all be doing 128-bit addressing already!" They can hold on to an empty /8 with an iron fist until it does eventually become worthless in 10 years, or they can be misremembered as the organization that invented IPv6. :-)
Apple in particular has never had an issue with dropping old technology when the time was right. They'd get another entry in all the history books for finally killing off IPv4, too, if they simply announced they'd ditch it on the iPhone in 2016. The writing is already on the wall, so it's really just a matter of who will be smart enough to step up first.
Source?
Why would they need the tax cuts? They already don't pay (tax scandal, sigh).