AWS adds an extra 5.5M IPv4 addresses
github.com
github.com
A thought comes to me: If IPv6 adoption continues to drag along, and AWS/Azure/GCP continue to expand their IP blocks like this, how quickly are we in danger of the cloud providers effectively being the Internet?
When I lived in Ireland I only got a public IPv6, my IPv4 was behind CG-NAT. The nerd in me wasn't a fan of that on paper, but in reality I didn't have any issues with it.
I could see ISPs making a quick buck by switching to CG-NAT on IPv4 so they can sell off their IPv4 blocks.
Those IPs being recycled for servers/services doesn't seem too risky, given that they're not typically hosting anything.
On the other hand, the IPv4/v6 addresses on my A&A connection geolocate to either London or Bracknell (where their office is), about 400 miles away. I get a lot of pointless ads for things in Surrey that I have no intention of visiting.
With loose enough permissions your browser has a geolocation API that, depending on your device, will be a hell of a lot more accurate (if you have Wi-Fi hardware it can use that to work out where it is relative to the known locations of the SSIDs it can see, or straight-out use GPS).
None of this has anything to do with IPv6 - you give away some location information with your username and profile on this very site, for example.
Where an IPv4 solution for your clients only needs change-logging on IPbinding-to-client level, the CG-NAT requires you as an ISP to log every outgoing IPv4/port combination with timestamp to client mapping.
Which requires A LOT more storage and much more expensive equipment.
Going rate per IPv4 is up to $40 nowadays, selling of your v4 block might not be cost-efficient.
A good CGNAT implementations have support for static blocks: the subscriber always ends up a a specific ipnumber+portblock combination. (Each subscriber is assigned a specific number of exit ports and this all just logged once during startup so you always know where each subscriber ends up).
Should they run out of their assigned portblock, there are pools which you can borrow from (these need then to be logged who borrowed at what time etc). So all in all there is less logging than when everything was dynamic.
(For those who haven't heard the reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCmyiljKo0#t=0m40s )
Usually, the law has specific procedures about how this information is requested, what responsibilities are with which party, and how long the response time should be for suchs a request.
When starting (or already being an ISP). You already know what kind of system you need to build that matches all these requirements by law. Simply saying, we do not have the required information wouldn't work because the law has very specific details about the requested information.*
* this is in a european country, so no clue if this is applicable to the US.
As a follow-up the agency, with the right court order, could get all the raw connection records and try to figure it out themselves. But if you don't know the exact time and (source IP, port, destination IP, port) combination you're not going to figure it out in a network with large scale NAT.
Why does each individual connection have to get a port from the global allocator, rather than any of the pooling or hierarchical techniques that high performance memory allocators use?
If cgnat keeps scaling, these ip Limiters need to phase out.
This problem would be easy to solve, if only there were some way for a website operator to phase out CGNAT and see a user's 128-bit IP address instead...
The association between IP and user/endpoint is changing, especially with the advent of Apple’s Private Relay, other privacy-protecting proxies, and increased CGNAT.
Website & hosting providers will have to adapt, but right now we’re certainly in a transition state.
No issues? So, how are people supposed to be able to access your machine then?
You can use IP6 or a commercial rather than domestic ISP if you really need to do it.
Looking back those 19 years, the availability and state of IPv6 has worsened for me - even though IPv4 shortage was known back then.
It's hard to understand why they don't just push through since there clearly are no real technical problems as witness by those few countries with major providers that actually actively use IPv6 (only).
Don't get me wrong. They say they support it, they have lots of PR that says the support it but in fact as a subscriber they do not.
"my internet provider, cox, does not actually support ipv6" to "I think it is safe to say that ipv6 is dead".
There are much more comprehensive ways to look at ipv6 adoption, e.g. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
They were purchased recently and maybe there is hope now.
The ability to launch a public-facing, commercial service and pretend like IPv4 never existed and you don't have to worry about it at all? Probably not within our lifetimes.
I'm on cox in southern california, and they rolled out IPv6 some time in the last year or so.
At auction the larger networks tend to go for less money per IP since there is a smaller market of people who want and can buy them (you have to be approved by ARIN/RIPE/etc. for the allocation size), which drives the price down.
It seems to me like an arbitrage opportunity, since /24 and /23 networks have many more potential buyers. But you have to be approved with a regional registry for the amount of space in order to buy it.
Observing things from the buy side, I suspect that IP space is being brought to auction in a slow but steady trickle so as to maintain upward momentum on prices. The price has approximately doubled in the last year.
This hasn’t been my experience in RIPEland since post IPv4-exhaustion. Is this an ARINism?
This is the same as saying no one can own a Disney character because anyone can draw it at home. Or no one owns songs because you can freely transmit them between devices you own.
People still own those things in most jurisdictions around the world.
A user doesn't really see any difference when traffic gets delivered over IPv6 instead of IPv4, so the scarcity of the global IPv4 space is meaningless compared to the incredibly vast usable size of the global IP space.
So offering any service just on IPv6 makes no sense in 99% of the cases. You can use if for some internal cases, if you can be sure that all your users have IPv6 wherever they happen to be.
If you are cloud provider and cannot offer your customers as many public IPv4 addresses as they want you are out of business.
They need to go after other service provider, not isp. ISP provide CGNAT to facilitate access to ipv4 only service.
IPV6 is in many ways a simpeler protocol then IPv4. for instance, it has a significantly simpeler header then IPv4, it does not duplicate the broadcast behaviour of ethernet but relies on multicast instead.
Some parts of IPv6 are complex (mainly, IPsec) but those are not required to get an operational ipv6 network.
SLAAC & NDP are both significantly more simple then ARP and Automatic addressing under ipv4.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/26/china_single_stack_ip...
On the server side, in contrast, NAT is winding down. 15 years ago, it was common to have either DMZ-style NAT, or on AWS you had to have NAT (they call it EIP). Nowadays, having a CDN or could-native load-balancer in front of your server is increasingly common. And behind those, that server just don't need a public IP (maybe only a shared outboud NAT for OS updates). That is - if you have a server at all (and not moved to lambda, S3, etc...)
Luckily i had created a reverse ssh tunnel on a vps before leaving.
If they are doing CGNAT further into the infrastructure, how would I even be able to tell at this point? I’m assuming someone would also block ICMP just so it would be less embarrassing, but who knows.
Comcast does generally seem to be moving towards IPv6 at least, which is helpful.
Check the IP on your WAN interface of your modem? I mean, that's how I have always been checking for CGNAT.
I've had this problem in the past with Vodafone, sometimes their AFTR (?) would go down but all ipv6 enabled hosts were still reachable. Only the ipv4 internet was unreachable. It took months for me to find that out, and I still don't know any workaround in case that happens again.
T-Mobile is running IPv6-only using 464 which is vulnerable to AFTR problems like you saw.
HTH,
John
I’ve been saying this for years. Nobody gets it because geeks don’t get ergonomics.
But, yes, generally, you're right. It's been seen from the very beginning as "a big move". If every address A.B.C.D was addressable as 0.A.B.C.D, and we opened up another 255 * 4 billion addresses... we'd have been converted a long time ago. And we'd have been better at actually implementing 'upgrades' because they'd be already done/completed - it wouldn't be a 'monumental task(tm)'.
We don't need every atom in the universe to be able to have 16 public addresses.
IPv6 isn't even remotely that big. There are about 10^38 IPv6 addresses, 10^50 atoms on Earth, and 10^80 atoms in the universe.
It would have been much easier to use long addresses that are long hashes of keys. Having only 40 bits means we need two layers of defense in depth to prevent intentional collision: a work function to make the cost substantial (about USD $8M per collision on today’s public cloud) and a single source of truth for lookup that still supports federation. You could punt on all that with 128 or 256 bit addresses.
Yet I did it because I was quite aware that it was very necessary for usability. I have had many people tell me they love that they can type a ZeroTier address.
I would bet anyone that if the addresses had been gigantic we’d have 1/10 the adoption.
Software is first and foremost for people to use. Most of the complexity in software exists for this reason.
Analogy: ZeroTier is to https://plus.codes/ as IPv6 is to mailing addresses. A mailing address is pretty long, but you can use its structure to route the mail efficiently.
Adding 16 or 32 more bits to IPv4 would have been trivial. The existing IPv4 address space becomes 0.0.n.n.n.n or perhaps 0.n.n.n.n.0 if you wanted to give every existing IP 256 addresses to assign while also multiplying the IP space by 256.
Easy, easy, easy.
Problem is, stacking the new protocol on top of IPv4 was never very reliable, so 6to4 is mostly dead now. It would've worked a bit better if the Internet had used 2002::/16 exclusively.
IPv6 was the correct long term approach. You wouldn't want to pick only 48 bits and have to do this again in 20 years.
in modern (last 10 - 15 ish years) routing table size has been roughly the same for IPv4 and IPv6.
Modern, ISP grade routers have control and forwarding planes seperated between different (usually redundant) hardware components. The control plane is responsible for keeping states of routes (which routes do i recieve from a routing protocol? where is my next hop according to rule XYZ etc). Forwarding plane is responsible for forwarding packets across interfaces.
Route lookups happen in the control plane, but a route lookup is almost never for a dedicated address (especially in IPV6). route lookups happen at the subnet level, and IPV6 has a "standard" subnet size which leaves half of the address space for the subnet itself. (the first /64 subnetmask bits are used for network differentiation, while the other /64 is used to create host specific addresses).
This cuts down on TCAM size considerably, because the router doesn't need to store 128 bits of information per host, but only 65 bits + subnetmask for a very large group of hosts.
besides this, IPv6 has another advantage because fragmenting routes is far more difficult then in IPv4.
Usually, organisations get a /56, the ISP usually handles /48's and RIPE/IANA etc work with /32.
This all keeps the IPV6 routing table far smaller then the IPv4 routing table, which was one of the reasons IPv6 was invented in the first place.
> But, yes, generally, you're right. It's been seen from the very beginning as "a big move". If every address A.B.C.D was addressable as 0.A.B.C.D, and we opened up another 255 * 4 billion addresses... we'd have been converted a long time ago. And we'd have been better at actually implementing 'upgrades' because they'd be already done/completed - it wouldn't be a 'monumental task(tm)'.
would this actually change the amount of "momumentalism" in switching ipv4 for something else? Backwards compatibility with larger address sizes (be it 128 bits, 33 bits or whatever) is not possible because ipv4 stacks can only hadle 32bit address space. Updating those is about as a monumental task as implementing IPV6, considering you would still need two network layer stacks for each device to handle both IPv4 and the "ipv4+" version.
Really? I see 700k routes v4 and 70k v6 routes.
IPv6 will keep routing table size smaller since they can preallocate HUGE subnets to every AS (AS is what people would call an ISP pretty much) so that they only have to split their subnets by geolocation.
what i meant to say was, that in modern routers, IPv4 and IPv6 theoretical routing table size can be the same. There is no difference in terms of maximum routes in the routing table between both protocols.
That has nothing to do with the address being long, but with being compatible.
For an actual conflict, someone would need to be using hostnames that had at least 16 segments, none of which were longer than 4 characters. Putting the burden on someone who wants to use extremely deep hostnames that look like bare IP addresses to type a trailing . on their hostname seems plenty reasonable to me. And if they want to use resolv.conf:search while still typing in 16 segments of a hostname, then that ambiguity could be resolved with a leading period.
I suspect the real reason is people who wanted to be able to write ad-hoc parsers using strchr().
We deal with the ambiguity by making it clear that if you expect to use DNS names that look like IPv4 addresses, you're going to experience the pain of unexpected behavior. I see no reason this general expectation couldn't also have been set for 16-segment hostnames that look like hexadecimal IP addresses.
Alternatively, a full IPv6 address without any '..' abbreviation could have been defined to start with a period. Then there would be no ambiguity.
As for the government mandate, also not possible. It would take our major ISPs over a decade to make this work, and the lobbyist would never allow it.
With that said, the DOD did make an interesting decision to move 175 Million IPs recently in routing tables.
You can read a short blog post here: https://brandergroup.net/2021/06/175-million-ipv4-addresses-...
Between cloudflare and AWS/Azure/Google most of the Internet is an oligopoly right now.
Interesting how nobody else replied to this part of your comment.
Technology certainly scaling and improving but it's being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. In the past I could compete with most sophisticated companies, it wasn't unattainable. Barrier to entry is simply too high now. No single or small team of developers and technologists is going to compete with AWS.
At that time, someone might think that IPv6 with all its faults might have been a good idea after all, but then it will be too late, since "v4 seems to work, all clients behind 2-3-4 layers of NAT, everything tunneled in HTTP/4.5 on a single port outwards to your VPS/VPN".
Not being able to host a game on your home computer, not being able to start a service unless GCP/Azure/AWS allows you to will be the end of the internet as we used to know it. Extra fun for anyone not being american enough to want to be a customer of the big three.
... there won't be any value in them any more.
if the only folks left who can use IPv4 are the hosting providers ("big three" or not), then nobody will be using using IPv4 to contact all the hosted services.
large swaths of users have IPv6 available to them. if there starts being some inconvenience to not having 6, we can be sure adoption will pick up even faster.
and upto that point, it will be SUPER expensive for you to try to get one (or 256), which they can pay since they have monopoly on them, and you only needing one can't.
Addendum: I also wish I could volunteer to be switched over to CGNAT for my personal IPv4 traffic. This discussion got me thinking about what it would take to get my company's IPv4 footprint down to zero. Might as well do that for myself as well if I could.
Using auto-assigned IPv4 should not be default, IMO. If I just did what amazon wanted me to without thinking, we would be consuming 5-6x more IPv4 addresses than we otherwise need to.
On top of that, there's a whole lot of software that either doesn't support v6, or has major problems.
It's been many years but most software I work with just works. Granted I don't work with a ton of old proprietary software.
Somebody doesn't do any address or route planning.
In IPv6 the amount of hosts in a subnet is totally unimportant (because there are always 64 bits for this). If you have, say, a thousand hosts you're going to need to buy decent network kit 'cos a pile of daisy-chained 5 port plastic home switches won't like that - but it's only a local problem, like buying enough cable. You can have however many subnetworks you felt was appropriate for managing and organising things, and only those need managing. However in IPv4 you need to know how many hosts there will be or might be in each subnet, in order to plan address allocation, and small changes can throw things into turmoil, you have to manage the individual host addresses.
Suppose I have four subnets with 40-50 hosts in each - in IPv4 chances are that's four /26s. And then somebody wants to add 20 hosts to one of the larger subnets so now it won't fit in a /26 any more. Ugh. This is likely to involve a re-numbering programme that might take weeks or months. I may need to reach above me, to find somebody who has enough address space to trade with me, and they may in turn have to reach up too, or worse find the money to buy space. Suddenly what should have been an easy problem ("add twenty new hosts") is a nightmare with a budget and project management.
IPv6 evaporates this entire class of problems. There might actually be people at large organisations whose job ceases to exist under IPv6. Certainly there are people whose job gets much easier and less stressful, and who don't have to say "No" as often any more.
I wonder if it would be feasible, when using a stripped-down container host OS like Bottlerocket, to configure one container host instance per availability zone to also do NAT. Note that I'm assuming a setup where the containers are running in ECS tasks that use the awsvpc network mode (i.e. each task has its own VPC network interface and private IP address), so security groups can be fine-grained. So even the tasks running on container hosts that do NAT would need the NAT.
Previous discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24753654
That people sell food and houses is disconcerting in the physical world and creates real problems for real people where some can't afford to eat or have a roof over their head despite a global abundance of resources. That people do the same in the virtual world, with literal numbers, is beyond the scope of comprehension: pure madness.
Be dismissive all you want.
Why should IP addresses be private property? Why not simply reclaim unused IP addresses instead, and re-distribute it using the usual mechanism?
Reselling them to a for-profit company was definitely not what was intended by anyone and directly contradicts their mission as custodians. Those addresses were that of the global radioamateur community and no one else's.
That's why i made a comparison with .org. ORG TLD was created exclusively by and for non-profits, so it was a scandal when some execs conspired against the general public to resell it and induce more costs for everyone. Likewise, it's a scandal that when you need/want to build DIY radio Internet setup, your addresses which were reserved for that usage don't exist anymore, as they have been appropriated by Amazon.
Please note that this story would be less of a scandal if the community had been consulted on how much of the IP range to sell (retaining some for legit usage), and/or if that money benefited the community and not some greedy capitalist execs, and/or if they had been reattributed through normal channels (RIPE and other RIRs) and not commercialized, none of which is true.
Also, they are giving back to the community. The largest grant so far was $1,620,000 to save a radio telescope for the MIT Amateur Radio club.
Thanks for the link to their grants. It's good to see they're doing something useful with the money and it's not a case of outright corruption. Although one could argue a club from one of the biggest colleges in the global north may have more suited avenues for funding, i'm glad to see smaller projects in there as well.
To be fair, if the goal was to raise money for the community, would it not have been wiser to rent the IP space, or to setup a proper charitable auction? The IPv4 addresses are bound to go up in value in the coming years, now that major RIRs have given away all the remaining blocks, so that might have brought more revenue.
These did not belong to amateur radio, TAPR, the ARRL or anyone but this organization.
Most likely we have different understandings of how ownership/stewardship of ipv4 addresses works. My take is "I don't know how it works", but I think the people further up thread believe it's not about ownership, but merely the right to administer on the understanding that it's done for the public good, or something like that.
If you have a concise resource that summarizes how it works that would likely do more to convince us than telling us to research ampr.org.
If you have links with more information going one way or another, historical internet politics is always something i have time for reading, and i think i'm not the only one around here! :)
Mobile internet is commonly served only by IPv6.
It's the hosting/server space where IPv4 matters and will probably be like this for the next 20 years. This will be harder than the python 2 -> 3 migration. We'll continue to come close to running out of IPv4 addresses but we won't ever ween off them completely in the server space.
> Mobile internet is commonly served only by IPv6.
These aren’t true. There are still some big consumer-facing sites that are IPv4 only — notably twitter.com and amazon.com. I can definitely still access both from my mobile device.
So while amazon.com may not have AAAA records/ipv6 it is still reachable by properly configured ipv6 clients with some sort of middleman to translate.
This is what we need to encourage IPv6 adoption and conservation of existing digital resources.
Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.
I am no longer so young and naive. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that such a move by Google or the other tech giants would not be made out of benevolence, but because by doing so, somehow, would net them yet greater control over the flow of information across the world. Whether out of an authoritarian desire architect society the right way this time, or chasing their profit margin as far down the asymptote as they can measure, the resultant 1st through Nth order effects would probably be the same for the rest of us.
All the big cloud providers like Google and AWS as well as the small ones like Hetzner do have an incentive to keep IPv4 going as long as possible. They can charge a premium for things IPv4 "because addresses are scarce". Charging a premium means more profit margin.
At the same time, they do not need to invest in more than lip service for IPv6 support in their offerings: No cloud provider has any comprehensive IPv6 offering, most services don't do IPv6. The edge ones maybe do, but there are always sharp edges, missing docs and general pain, pushing everyone back to IPv4 where the profits are.
How are those two things related?
1. There are a ton of owners sitting on inefficiently used IP space.
Any company (not doing cloud hosting or network transit) that's holding a /8 is almost certainly using it very inefficiently, but an owner like Apple will never feel financial pressure to optimize or sell their /8. However, an owner like the university I went to (with a /16 network currently worth $3 million) will eventually face internal pressure to sell that network when the value rises to say $50 million.
As another example, Yahoo is currently announcing subnets containing 4.3 million IPv4 addresses, which is worth $193.5mm at auction. If the price of IPv4 addresses increased by say 10x, their IPv4 space would probably comprise the bulk of the company's value.
2. Owners will need to adopt IPv6 in order to realize these financial gains.
In order to sell a significant portion of their IPv4 space, an owner will have to compact their IPv4 usage into a much smaller space and migrate everything else to IPv6. This will be a huge undertaking for a lot of these places, but at some point it's worth it. By doing that, IPv6 adoption increases.
There is the potential for a feedback loop to be created where demand for IPv4 drops and the prices decline and so fewer conversions are done, but I tend to believe that IPv4 pricing will remain inelastic.
So basically the invisible hand of the market may guide us to IPv6, but I highly highly doubt we will have seen the last of IPv4 even decades from now.
This includes AWS, btw. You effectively get a public IPv4 with your instance, regardless of your actual needs. It actually increases your costs to get cloud instances that don't do that.
That is still a problem for sure, but I thinking of places doing things like giving a printer its own subnet just because they have no incentive to be efficient.
With a routeable IP on every computer, no one would be a second class (consume-only) user of the Internet.
So practically a globally addressable IP or not makes no impact on ability to be routable publicly
I maybe biased, I grew up in the 90's so I dont' really know how it was before, I do hear people reminisce about days before eternal September and bb groups and the good old 80's so perhaps it is always been a downward gradient as more and more people came online.
I just installed a new FTTH ISP at home and learned the hard way what CG-NAT is, after years of having my own public IP with my previous ISP.
I pay about $180/month for a “business internet” cable line. 300 megabits down, 25 up. I also “know a guy” at the ISP who made sure the routing wasn’t going to be an issue.
This is super interesting! I didn't know this was even possible before I started looking into it.
[1]https://superuser.com/questions/323801/how-can-i-own-an-ip-a...
There are also cloud providers, like Vultr, that will allow you to do BGP with them. You could then get a network block routed to a VPS, then tunnel it out or whatever.
Found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75h4gm7t1oI
...or the opposite: large cloud providers own a lot of valuable IPv4 space. They might want to increase the value of their investment.
Encouraging switching to pure-IPv6 connectivity would be a big loss for them.
facebook.com has IPv6 address 2a03:2880:f119:8083:face:b00c:0:25de
instagram.com has IPv6 address 2406:da00:ff00::23ae:4dc1
snapchat.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:4802:36::15
netflix.com has IPv6 address 2600:1f14:62a:de82:822d:a423:9e4c:da8d
youtube.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:4006:810::200e
github.com has no AAAA record
And the chart in that blog shows the dent we made.
This guide doesn't even mention AAAA records: https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/dns/dns-records/
API examples are ipv4 unless the option takes ipv6 only: https://api.cloudflare.com/#dns-records-for-a-zone-update-dn...
Your terraform examples use ipv4 only: https://registry.terraform.io/providers/cloudflare/cloudflar... https://registry.terraform.io/providers/cloudflare/cloudflar...
And many others.
In other words, I expect steering people to do ipv6, then maybe ipv4 as well rather than the opposite would give the internet as a whole another big jump in ipv6 usage.
Let’s take any sort of CDN out of the equation for simplicity. Can I use Cloudflare DNS for the service, such that anyone using ipv6 will connect directly to my service, of course— but can CF do some magic ipv4->ipv6 translation/bridge sort of thing, so that someone on ipv4-only will also be able to connect to my ipv6-only service?
I’d imagine the answer is hopefully yes and perhaps this is trivial stuff these days, but anyway I’m thinking of setting up a blog and might go ipv6 only with it..
Typically, both the A and AAAA records point to the same Cloudflare proxy, because serving IPv4 and IPv6 via different infrastructure requires a lot of care to avoid subtle brokenness.
Of course, it is up to the client, then, to decide which address to use. Not all clients default to v6 even if it is available.
Meanwhile on the user side support has tripled from about 11% in 2016 to 33% recently [3].
I guess when you run a scalable web service, you need comparatively few publicly available ip addresses, and everyone has ipv4 anyways, while when you run an ISP, you need way more ip addresses. So the problem is way more pronounced for ISPs than the service providers. I guess the number of deployments with carrier grade NAT without ipv6 support is quite low.
[0]: http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20180826104925/http://www.delong....
[2]: http://web.archive.org/web/20161019011050/http://www.delong....
On a more serious node: IPv6 can be short and if used right they are actually short. Unfortunately, people continue not to care about relearning their habits and treat IPv6 as if it‘s a 1:1 replacement of IPv4 (you can even see it in this threat when people ask „why would you need more than a /64“). A major blocker in IPv6 aren‘t just the IPs but that all sys admins out there are trained to treat IPs as they got used to from the v4 world and can‘t stop to think of them as scarce resources instead of applying a hierarchical approach.
But it is happening. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html shows it slowly but steadily increasing.
And there are even some earlier pickups of two /10s: 252.0.0.0/10 and 44.192.0.0/10. Wow.
Gonna be funny how well likely live to see ipv6 run out of ip space leading to ipv8!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_addre...
At least for 8.8.8.8 they need to update thier POC
> ARIN has attempted to validate the data for this POC, but has received no response from the POC since 2019-10-24
Source: worked for them in a couple of countries
So part of this is putting into service networks that they previously acquired, probably to keep up with growth. Buying in 2018 would have been a MUCH lower price than today -- and it can pretty much only go up!
And is 240.0.0.0/4 still "reserved"?
"The first RFC to standardize IPv6 was the RFC 1883 in 1995, which became obsoleted by RFC 2460 in 1998. In July 2017 this RFC was obsoleted by RFC 8200, which elevated IPv6 to "Internet Standard" (the highest maturity level for IETF protocols)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/04/penta...
dig -t txt DOMAIN | grep v=spf1
and walk the records and includes for "ip6:...". Good luck finding any.
It's even been discussed on HN previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18407173
One IP per server should be the norm.
Thats enough addresses to give every one of the 8 billion humans on this planet, two billion /64 subnets. Which I'd say should be enough for the moment.
Last week I was thinking about a system to automatically cut my hair the way I exactly want (precision up to the millimeter and per hair). So, one way would be by using cheap microrobots*. The
On average we have around 100K hairs on our heads. Let’s say you buy 100K microrobots to cut your hair. Each of these microrobots could have their own ipv6 (because, why not) so that you can control them via your phone. So, suddenly you have there one person using 100K ipv6 addresses.
So, whenever people say “ipv6 should be enough for now”, I always think “well, it depends on how they are used!”
Than the question is how many addresses everyone needs. Currently we assign subnets. Let's provide everyone with 1024 subnets for client devices and an additional 1024 servers each with their own subnets. So 2^11 subnets each.
So we end up requiring 2^51 subnets, while we have 2^64 available, thereby only using less than 0.013% which provides plenty of room to reconsider if any of these approximations turn out to be wrong.