[HN Gopher] 32 Bit Real Estate
___________________________________________________________________
32 Bit Real Estate
Author : craigkerstiens
Score : 77 points
Date : 2021-10-19 16:48 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fly.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (fly.io)
| dadrian wrote:
| For what it's worth, this aligns with my experience buying /24's
| over the last two years.
| mike_d wrote:
| > One last thing: a new 5-digit ASN will cost you about $500 from
| ARIN, but there are auctions for 4-digit ASNs, and they run into
| mid-five-figures. If any of you can explain this to us, we'd be
| grateful.
|
| To answer the authors question: lower number ASNs are seen as
| older more established networks when negotiating peering. It's
| the equivalent of doing a WHOIS on someone's personal domain and
| seeing when they started seriously internetting.
|
| Obviously shorter numbers are more memorable and easier to type
| frequently, which is a desirable trait for network operators.
|
| You probably spent a few bucks on "fly.io" and applied a mental
| value to the outward perception of a short memorable domain.
| psim1 wrote:
| We recently received a /23 block from ARIN by sitting on the
| waiting list for about 2 months. If you're not in a hurry and
| you're not looking for a large block of IPv4, wait. Small
| companies still have a chance at IPv4 without paying a fortune.
| tptacek wrote:
| Oh, this is very cool. What is your company doing with the
| addresses? I wonder if there are applications where it's easier
| to get addresses than others.
| mike_d wrote:
| "Justification" at the RIRs is a little subjective, but it is
| supposed to be based entirely on technical need not use case.
|
| If you want to talk more about getting additional IPs, Mark
| at your provider is a super smart dude, or you can ping me
| offline.
| mrkurt wrote:
| RIPE was handing out /20s to new members about 2 years ago, as
| well. I'm a fan, it would be nice for more people to have
| smaller blocks.
| techsupporter wrote:
| They were /22 I believe. You can still get a single /24 as a
| new RIPE member, and no waiting at the moment as their IPv4
| waiting list is empty.
| mwcampbell wrote:
| > we assign distinct public IPv4 addresses to each app running on
| Fly.io.
|
| Why not charge a premium for even one distinct public IPv4
| address? Most applications are HTTP(S)-based and could share a
| reverse proxy with a thousand other apps, right? You could even
| spin the lack of distinct public IPs as a positive: zero IPv4
| footprint.
| tptacek wrote:
| The post talks about this (I take your point that we didn't
| write about it clearly enough). There are two reasons:
|
| 1. We don't want to do anything to discourage people from
| building non-HTTP applications on Fly.io, because we're fans of
| weird applications.
|
| 2. Just giving every app a routable address simplifies our own
| deployment logic (at the expense of acquiring blocks of IP
| addresses).
|
| Really, the reason we were moved to write about this is (2);
| specifically: so long as IPv4 addresses are appreciating assets
| (as current buyers, we can report: they remain appreciating
| assets), then there is a sense in which holding IPv4 blocks is
| really just holding money in a different, somewhat less liquid
| (but potentially profitable) form.
|
| We're not saying that's a _good_ thing, just that it 's
| interesting that you can essentially take out a mortgage on a
| large block of addresses and live in it while it appreciates.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| TLS doesn't require HTTP.
| tptacek wrote:
| Sure. You take my meaning, I assume. Virtually all of the
| TLS apps on Fly.io are HTTPS apps.
| mike_d wrote:
| > Most applications are HTTP(S)-based and could share a reverse
| proxy with a thousand other apps, right?
|
| Try running your SaaS app on an IP address shared with a porn
| site and you'll quickly discover all the strange ways older
| middle-boxes try to police network traffic.
| p1mrx wrote:
| This is why people have been trying to promote IPv6 for the last
| couple decades. It is silly that new internet companies should
| have to pay money to those who got here first.
|
| Still waiting for AAAA records on news.ycombinator.com. IPv6-only
| SIP trunking would also be nice, since an IPv4 address is the
| main cost of hosting a small PBX.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| IPv6 should have been designed to be backwards compatible and
| smoothly transition people over. Why not design it so you can
| just quietly migrate to ipv6 on the infrastructure side by
| introducing automatic translation of ipv4 packets into ipv6 and
| back by padding and removing zeros, and automatically reserving
| all the resulting ipv6 addresses to their ipv4 equivalent
| owners.
|
| This situation is the result of poor design and roll-out
| decisions, not the fault of everyone else.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > IPv6 should have been designed to be backwards compatible
|
| Impossible. You can't communicate between two hosts without
| both hosts being able to address the other -- and there's no
| way for an IPv4-only host to pack 128 bits of address into a
| 32-bit host field.
| seiferteric wrote:
| I wonder if you could use something like IP in IP
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_in_IP), basically just
| slap another IP header on your packet so your IP becomes
| two 32 bit IPs, one for your ISP and one for you.
| akersten wrote:
| As I'm (slowly, begrudgingly) learning about IPv6 I can't
| help but agree. Astounding that backwards compatibility was
| abandoned in favor of ... Being able to hand out a /64 or /48
| to anyone with a pulse? No residential customer needs that
| many addresses, yet I can call my ISP today and block that
| off for eternity. To what end?
|
| IPv6 should just have been a superset and
| 0..1.xxx.yyy.zzz.ttt should have been the legacy IPv4 space.
| I really don't get the point of all the bizarre block
| assignments, hexadecimal fetish, and general "why is this
| seemingly purposefully such a pain in the ass" feeling I get
| whenever I look at it.
| CarelessExpert wrote:
| Yeah, I truly do not understand what's causing Hacker News or
| Reddit to drag their feet. My guess is they've simply done the
| calculus and decided the number of impacted users doesn't
| justify the cost, and meanwhile, they already have their v4
| allocation so there's no financial pressure either.
|
| I'm starting to think the RIR's should just start charging
| increasing YoY maintenance fees on v4 address space for
| companies that haven't rolled out v6. Those companies, who
| already have an allocation, are really benefiting from a
| negative externality. Maybe it's time they start paying for the
| privilege.
| pixl97 wrote:
| SIP_ALG is what I like to call the biggest cost of VOIP,
| especially from home.
|
| I'd love to just have a firewall between my SIP device and the
| internet with IPv6 and none of the games routers play these
| days.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-19 23:00 UTC)