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
You can’t do so retroactively, that would be illegal, and that’s why it’s not being done.
Besides... you can add all IPs to a single VM and they would technically be in use. It’s extremely hard to enforce.
All true.
Which is what points to my 2nd point:
No one planned this to play out the way it did- there wasn’t a plan to set the system up a „capitalist way“ or a „communist way“, it was rather that people did what they thought was best at that time - and the world has changed since then.
Now we simply need to live with it.
with or without pages of philosophical discussions.
So I know the basics of networking and in no way I'm an expert. That being said, is ipv6 that shitty like @jsg was talking about? I always thought that ipv6 adoption was a big step that companies were too stubborn to take (come to think about ColoCrossing) and wanted to take the easy way for their legacy hardware. Or if they adopt that they don't follow the standard guidelines like my ISP, OVH, digitalocean, ... not giving each customer a /64.
It's also that many companies have invested a lot into V4 addresses so they want their worth out of them. Why rush to make your big investment worthless?
I still think that we'll see most end users move to v6 w/ v4 NAT. Business/etc customers will get a v4 but with a large mark up on the plan.
A complete drop from v4 isn't happening any time soon just because you have so many legacy corporations sitting on some router that's older than most people on these forums.
Francisco
I am curious to know how much Amazon paid for their /8. Does anyone know the answer?
@Vinnyletje: No, IPv6 isn't bad. It may be somewhat over-engineered, but it's not bad.
By the way, to the naysayers, IPv6-adoption is steadily increasing:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption
Also, what I find somewhat unexpected is that countries that suffer less from IPv4-exhaustion (e.g., the US, Belgium, Germany) are forerunners in IPv6-adoption:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
India is exceptional in their rate of IPv6-adoption among countries that suffer more from IPv4-exhaustion.
I imagine that there are socioeconomic and perhaps technical reasons why many "poorer" countries haven't yet adopted IPv6 even though it would really benefit them.
I didn't mean to sound like I was saying that ipv6 is bad. I was talking about how jsg seems to not really like it how they designed it. Also I live in Belgium the reason why we have such a high adoption rate is that there are pretty much only 2 large providers here and one of them has adopted ipv6 and I also said that my isp doesn't follow the guidelines so ya I don't have a full /64 as a customer not that I feel like I should have a full range but I mean it's pretty much free for them so why shouldn't they follow the guidlines.
Indeed, my comment was a reaction to exactly that (you asked "is ipv6 that shitty like @jsg was talking about?").
(I didn't mean to imply that you yourself had said that IPv6 was bad.)
Ah ok my bad sounded like it was directed at me
$7
Curious about this as well.
They bought /9 off MIT last year, but I don't think we found out the price of that one either.
Yeah, it seems to be kept a secret.
There may be something a little uncomfortable (say, for GE or for MIT, in terms of public relations) in selling an /8 or a /9 of IPv4 addresses for millions of dollars that they never had to purchase in the first place.
I believe that Stanford University voluntarily returned an /8 to ARIN a few years ago in order to help the problem of IPv4 shortage, which seems like the right thing to do, but other universities or companies can't resist from selling their subnets.
@jsg displaying his greed in full length is entertaining to watch.
What about trying to get DoD to give up their /8s? That'd be a fun process I guess...
6/8, 7/8, 11/8, 21/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 33/8, 55/8, 214/8, 215/8.
It’s also going to be a cold day in hell when that happens.
Pardon my actually discussing and laying out arguments instead of just splashing funny or cool one to three liners. Probably I misunderstood the purpose of a forum.
And (honestly) thanks for your fairness of publicly agreeing with some factual points although they came from someone you don't like.
Things far worse than taking away unused or wastefully used IPs are done by states, governments, and agencies each and every day.
Besides, if the contracts back then really were like that then they were/are legally doubtful and could be void (in part). IPs, just like phone numbers or license plates (thanks for the good example) are public and limited resources and can not be sold or given away; they only can be allocated temporarily and bound to certain conditions (like actual need).
@Vinnyletje (@angstrom)
To be honest, there are differing opinions. Some like me who usually come from a technical perspective, strongly dislike IPv6 and think it's seriously bad and to be avoided. Others think that IPv6 is a great thing and they have arguments too, e.g. the vast address space or derivates thereof (e.g. IoT).
It is, however, a clear fact and we have been bitten by that problem already sometimes (and it was painful) that "thou shallst not easily go beyond the bit width of they common processors!". Hardcore engineers argue the common (as in wide spread) bit with of processors is - and will stay for some time - 32 bits. On the other hand IPv4 is 32 bits and it's obviously too tight; we need something bigger. I'm less extreme and think that 64 bit processors are "common enough" for a 64 bits IP address space not being a burden or increasing costs substantially. The last group, btw. strongly driven by large corporations (e.g. Google), thinks that we absolutely need 128 bit IP addresses and they don't care at all about common processors.
Finally let me introduce one example of a (actually very very serious) problem most IPv6 fans just ignore:
You think intel x86 is the most used processor? You are wrong. The BY FAR most used processors are microcontrollers, very, very many of which still are 8 bit and the high-end ones are 32 bit and they are in washing machines, cars, and thousands of everyday devices. Many, probably most of those devices would have serious problems with 128 bit IP addresses (and btw very many of those have less than 1 KB of RAM). Many, probably most of those devices also have hard limits on their resources which basically means that billions of washing machines, controllers in cars, elevators, industry shop floors, etc. would need new "main boards", often with new or even different processors and hence an expensive development cycle - and someone had to pay for that. Guess who that will be. Hint: It's not Google.
So there are reasons and solid reasons for IPv6 having far less and worse uptake than projected (and propagandized). Plus a closer look shows that the hurray shouters usually come from the big processors camp (because for an x86-64 doing 128 bit address operations are just a minor burden). But again: those processors are just a quite tiny fraction of the whole processor universe.
That's an interesting one. On the one hand the DOD is somewhat of a holy cow plus a very very mighty one. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if the DOD were quite open to giving away major ranges of what they've got. For one they (surprisingly) aren't that bad guys and often quite open to technologically driven changes, and of course they haven't any significant qualms about spending (wasting) money.
TL;DR I wouldn't say that I expect it but I would not at all be surprised if the DOD gave up/away major IPv4 ranges in a not distant future.
Perhaps it's ironic, but insofar as it is recommended to assign /64 IPv6 subnets to public-facing computers (and this is recommended), there is a sense in which the public-facing IPv6 address space is 64 bits and not 128 bits.
Kind of ...
There are problems with that however. One is the backbone, data centers, etc. because those must work with and process full 128 bit addresses. Many think (superficially) that that is not problem because certainly those "beasts" like big routers have plenty powerful hardware. Well, yes and no. Much of their power comes from specialized chips that e.g. switch many 10+ Gb ports. But for one header eval. still is one particularly intense part of their work and that will need major changes (and more power).
But there are other and potentially even more difficult problems lurking below the surface. To name one, firewalling but also quite some routing often use tree structures like a trie. Their complexity and workload however increases exponentially, so the difference between 32 bits and 128 bits is not 4-fold but much much (well, exponentially) worse.
Another problem with the route you mention (which is a sensible approach to a degree) is that it works only in the internal network (and even there only in some parts) but there's still a need for a (more powerful) gateway. Plus evidently you need to have both stacks (e.g. dhcp).
TL;DR - Yes we need something beyond Ipv4 - but that something should be 64 bits and just extend the current mechanisms (instead of introducing completely new mechanisms like neighbour discovery). This would also allow to very simply map a full IPv4 address space, say 127.0.0.0.x.x.x.x into the 64 bit IP model.
My home ISP provide v4 NAT and IPv6 connectivity and have been for a while now. A dedicated v4 is charged at £5/mo..
Yes, of course, the addresses remain 128 bit -- I was just commenting on a sense in which the public-facing IPv6 address space is 64 bit if /64 subsets are assigned.
35 EUR/month in Vodafone, Portugal. Crazy.
Vodafone UK will assign a static v4 for free.
Lucky. Thats not how it works in Portugal unfortunately...
@MikePT MEO b2c doesn't have a dedicated IPv4 offer, just dual stack, but b2b services have IPv4 for free.
NAT really didnt get widespread adoption until late 90s. these big companies with lots of public ips were typically using them internally, using them on everything.
there is a cost to changing your network, to re-addressing everything etc.
i think @jsg is largely right but unrealistic.
some businesses will use the sale to cover costs and others will have made a windfall... ip addresses are hardly the only public property onsold by private entities at a profit.
Internet 'edge' devices including IoT require much more robust security, and in the near future, it's likely to be developed around an min-arch capable of handling 128bit address width.
The current crop of insecure, never-patched IoT widgets ought to die in a dumpster fire.
Regulation (hi EU) is sorely needed for IoT device certification ( Much like motor engines for emissions) because they have the capability to harm civilization if left unchecked.
But university networks (in Portugal) assign a different public IPv4 to every connected client (MAC)...
Edit: Not sure if they all do, mine does. University networks are all part of the same network but I think each uni is allowed to manage it as wanted. I'll clarify it.
Neither does Vodafone. Its B2B. Meo doesnt provide a static IP for free certainly. Can you share the source?
They rotate the IPs etc.