5 ms·

I feel like AWS and the Cloud in general have to be helping with this issue, because people no longer need to lock down individual IPs or ranges of IPs to get w

I feel like AWS and the Cloud in general have to be helping with this issue, because people no longer need to lock down individual IPs or ranges of IPs to get work done. Without the need to lock down an IP that you may or may not need to use, and with load-balancers that are able to expose boxes on a private subnet, the demand for IPv4 should be going down.

dijit 9y ago
I actually disagree on this point. The rapid deployment and horizontal scaling that cloud recommends implicitly (failure domains, microservices as small isolated single purpose units et al.) also promote the consumption of IPv4 address space. The other thing is Docker and Kubernetes are not supporting IPv6 today so that definitely locks a lot of the more modern cloud deployments to IPv4, even if it's S2S communication which could have been IPv6 only (since you would control both ends) otherwise... so that's another thing. However, new network layer technologies like "Layer-3 all the way to the server" are allowing providers to use their entire IPv4 allocation by having BGP pushing /32 routes internally and this has been the biggest helper in my opinion, no longer do you have a static /24 allocation and a bunch of dead space that can't be freed easily. Of course people who are new to OPs/Dev haven't really seen this much- but I would probably venture more than 50% of ipv4 space is locked into allocations that are mostly empty. -- I also think there is still an increasing population of internet users and VPS/Cloud providers give a cheap and easy way to be online too.. $5 for a VPS in most cases.
- sulam 9y ago
  You just get given some 10.x space anyway. It only really bites you on the ass when you need to exchange traffic between hosting providers and that can generally be done although you may have to find a middle man in some cases.
- notyourday 9y ago
  > I actually disagree on this point. The rapid deployment and horizontal scaling that cloud recommends implicitly (failure domains, microservices as small isolated single purpose units et al.) also promote the consumption of IPv4 address space. Nothing but the external entry points in a cloud need to be publicly accessible IPv4.
h1d 9y ago
Going down? That is if the number of Internet users don't grow and since it is so easy to spin up an instance even for just $5 a month these days, many people are rather willing to spin up more than they would have physically to use more IPv4 addresses. But seeing how attaching an extra IP to an instance is so cheap everywhere, it seems there's no immediate threat to lack of address spaces but I'd like to know about a proper research.
- fosco 9y ago
  new techniques such as SNI [0] enable more websites to be hosted behind the same IP. I do not know what it means for security or if there are any major trade offs, but I am acutely aware that it is widely used. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication

dijit 9y ago

I actually disagree on this point. The rapid deployment and horizontal scaling that cloud recommends implicitly (failure domains, microservices as small isolated single purpose units et al.) also promote the consumption of IPv4 address space. The other thing is Docker and Kubernetes are not supporting IPv6 today so that definitely locks a lot of the more modern cloud deployments to IPv4, even if it's S2S communication which could have been IPv6 only (since you would control both ends) otherwise... so that's another thing. However, new network layer technologies like "Layer-3 all the way to the server" are allowing providers to use their entire IPv4 allocation by having BGP pushing /32 routes internally and this has been the biggest helper in my opinion, no longer do you have a static /24 allocation and a bunch of dead space that can't be freed easily. Of course people who are new to OPs/Dev haven't really seen this much- but I would probably venture more than 50% of ipv4 space is locked into allocations that are mostly empty. -- I also think there is still an increasing population of internet users and VPS/Cloud providers give a cheap and easy way to be online too.. $5 for a VPS in most cases.

sulam 9y ago
You just get given some 10.x space anyway. It only really bites you on the ass when you need to exchange traffic between hosting providers and that can generally be done although you may have to find a middle man in some cases.
notyourday 9y ago
> I actually disagree on this point. The rapid deployment and horizontal scaling that cloud recommends implicitly (failure domains, microservices as small isolated single purpose units et al.) also promote the consumption of IPv4 address space. Nothing but the external entry points in a cloud need to be publicly accessible IPv4.

h1d 9y ago

Going down? That is if the number of Internet users don't grow and since it is so easy to spin up an instance even for just $5 a month these days, many people are rather willing to spin up more than they would have physically to use more IPv4 addresses. But seeing how attaching an extra IP to an instance is so cheap everywhere, it seems there's no immediate threat to lack of address spaces but I'd like to know about a proper research.

fosco 9y ago
new techniques such as SNI [0] enable more websites to be hosted behind the same IP. I do not know what it means for security or if there are any major trade offs, but I am acutely aware that it is widely used. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication