5 ms·
A subtle detail from the article is that address prices peaked in 2021 at $60 and has steadily decreased to $35. Where does it go from here? Is this a proxy for
by Narkov 3y ago
A subtle detail from the article is that address prices peaked in 2021 at $60 and has steadily decreased to $35. Where does it go from here? Is this a proxy for the tech correction?
- atyvr 3y agoYah, it certainly seems like maybe that was peak pricing. This write up has some more data on historical pricing https://www.ipxo.com/blog/ipv4-price-history/ https://www.ipxo.com/blog/ipv4-price-history/ I've also heard folks pay quite a bit over the average price for novelty IP addresses, so perhaps that skewed the data? I'd love to be able to buy 2.2.2.0/23 or my favorite 42.42.42.0/24
- 015a 3y agoYeah, one example is Cloudflare and 1.1.1.1; though the story behind that is less about money and far more interesting. Apparently, APNIC had owned 1.1.1.1 for, basically, forever, but were never able to actually use it for anything because it caught so much garbage traffic. Cloudflare is one of only a handful of service providers that could announce the IP and handle the traffic; so in exchange for helping APNIC's research group sort through the trash traffic, Cloudflare hosts their DNS resolver there. https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-1111/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-1111/
- Something1234 3y agoI would really like to see the results of this research to understand what is going on there.
- oasisbob 3y agohttps://labs.ripe.net/author/franz/pollution-in-18/ https://labs.ripe.net/author/franz/pollution-in-18/
- wincy 3y agoThat’s pretty cool. I’d never though about bogons and debogonizing before, it’s like chasing off all the squatters on your property and more keep coming. You need some fat pipes and beefy servers to be able to handle all the bogus traffic of machines trying to hit your server, and also be able to actually fulfill your purpose. Make sense now why Cloudflare would be one of the only companies that could handle it!
- nielsole 3y agoThey only had a 10mbit link. Apparently 50mbit/s was the amount of traffic they received. Mostly everyone could handle this, not just CloudFlare.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y agoCloudFlare reported 10Gib/s when they first switched it on. The 10Mb/s link was deliberately limited.
- nielsole 3y agoThe last public analysis was done in 2010 by RIPE and APNIC. At the time, 1.1.1.0/24 was 100 to 200Mb/s of traffic, most of it being audio traffic. In March, when Cloudflare announced 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24, ~10Gbps of unsolicited background traffic appeared on our interfaces. https://blog.cloudflare.com/fixing-reachability-to-1-1-1-1-globally/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/fixing-reachability-to-1-1-1-1-g...
- raverbashing 3y agoSo, what happened to everything that expected 1.1.1.1 to error out and now is getting something? (not worried about them, just curious)
- depereo 3y agoWell, a lot of Cisco wireless engineers had to reconfigure their guest wifi captive portals.
- lxgr 3y agoHeh :) To be honest I feel as bad for them as I do for Hamachi, when their (otherwise quite nice in that it was a spiritual predecessor to Tailscale!) overlay VPN service fell apart once 5.0.0.0/24 became publicly assigned.
- jtriangle 3y agoWhich is funny because half the time I still end up manually typing 1.1.1.1 and praying for a redirect...
- stephen_g 3y agoI mean, for smaller routers that had static routes set for that subnet, it would probably just keep working - the issue being that trying to get to real addresses in the 1.0.0.0/8 network (or parts of it) wouldn't work. If you were BGP peering then you'd probably get a real route into your local table though. So yeah, some stuff would probably have just broken, but that's the risk you take using parts of the IP space you shouldn't be using!
- willcipriano 3y agoThey switched to 2.2.2.2
- raverbashing 3y agoIPv1 is a cozy place
- 3y ago
- peoplearepeople 3y agoIPv6 usage also went up 10% in that time https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- fanf2 3y agoPossibly. It might also have been a bit of a panic because RIPE ran out of IPv4 addresses around that time and it was unclear back then how liquid the transfer market would be.
- p1mrx 3y agoRIPE ran out in 2012, just after APNIC in 2011. RIPE had a policy to extremely rate limit allocations from their last /8, which is how they were able to continue allocating for an extra 7 years. The other RIRs had no such policy.
- p1mrx 3y agoIdeally the long-term value is $0 when IPv4 becomes irrelevant, but how long that takes, and the prices along the way, are anyone's guess. Even explaining past prices is analogous to stock market voodoo.
- TZubiri 3y agoNot a fan of ipv6 evangelizing, much less at this point. Just give it up.
- JakobH 3y agoWhat is your solution?
- speedgoose 3y agoNot OP nor a recognised network expert but here is my suggestion: IPv10. The next IP version number that is unassigned, that is conveniently 4+6. Basically something that is not breaking compatibility with IPv4 and doesn’t require those dual network stacks nonsense.
- cdchn 3y agoHow do you not break compatibility with IPv4 while also getting more bytes in the address?
- sambazi 3y agocountry codes </s>
- speedgoose 3y agoWell again I’m not a network expert but perhaps we could look at the 240.0.0.0/4 reserved for future use block and add more address bytes in the payload or something. It’s not going to be elegant but IPv6 is kinda elegant and failed.