5 ms·

So what are server hosts going to do now? If I need to scale up and order some more servers when are we going to get to the point where they say no? I assume t

So what are server hosts going to do now? If I need to scale up and order some more servers when are we going to get to the point where they say no? I assume that server hosts are going to start charging larger and larger sums of money per month for more than a single IP on a server in order to claw back some of their allocation from their customers in cases where people didn't really need so many. But how long can this go on?

_RPM 11y ago
Your load balancer has a public IP address. You route requests to the internal LAN on one of the "private" IP blocks (10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/8)
- Negitivefrags 11y ago
  I suppose that it would be that easy if we were hosting a website. We make an online game though so the general solution isn't going to work for us. Sure, in principal it's the same but it's going to require a fair bit more manual implementation in our case, not to mention added latency in a very latency sensitive application.
  - blantonl 11y ago
    TCP load balancing would also be an option in your case.
  - asdfaoeu 11y ago
    I think your exaggerating the latency effects but anyway you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip. This is really just going to initially hurt service providers which is good because those are the ones who can make large inroads with IPv6
    - jingo 11y ago
      "... you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip." About the price of a domainname? (Note I did not use the word "cost". I create dommainnames all the time at the price of $0.) Given the choice between a domainname and an IPv4 adddress, I would take the IPv4 address. Also, given the choice between a single, routable IPv4 addresses and a block of IPv6 addresses, I would still choose the IPv4 address. IPv4 is "simplicity" in comparison to the complexity of IPv6. IPv6 has features I do not need. Whenever I am granted the choice, I always choose simplicity over complexity. Most of the time the additonal complexity is not needed and can only cause problems in the long run. This is only the opinion of one "consumer". Certainly the "market" may have another opinion.
      - Implicated 11y ago
        > I create dommainnames all the time at the price of $0 Care to explain how?
        mappu 11y ago
        I'm interested too. My guesses: - http://www.freenom.com/ http://www.freenom.com/ - work-for/own a domain registrar - own a pseudo-TLD like .com.me and are really just creating subdomains - have a large account / custom pricing deals with a domain registrar such that despite a high total cost, the marginal per-domain cost is approximately $0 - only internally-routable domains e.g. /etc/hosts or company-internal DNS server - only alternative DNS roots like Namecoin or tor's .onion domains
      - Chlorus 11y ago
        > "Also, given the choice between a single, routable IPv4 addresses and a block of IPv6 addresses, I would still choose the IPv4 address." Ah yes, which would likely entail the 'simplicity' of NAT...
      - the8472 11y ago
        > IPv6 has features I do not need. Are you forced to use them? If not, where's the problem? I for one love ipv6, it restores the end-to-end principle.
    - scurvy 11y ago
      NATs do induce a fair amount of latency. It's not exaggerated. Watch Paul Saab from Facebook talk about how much better IPv6 performs at NANOG 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s
  - the8472 11y ago
    Instead of a layer 7 proxy couldn't you just use static port forwarding and multiplex servers based on ports?
p1mrx 11y ago
Up until now, the rational choice was to dole out as many IPv4 addresses as possible, in order to justify a larger allocation from ARIN. Now that the party's over, we should expect ISPs and hosting providers to become more stingy with their addresses: more NATs, more proxies, higher prices. Any new providers that pop up between now and the date IPv4 becomes irrelevant will be at a competitive disadvantage.
- solotronics 11y ago
  From the perspective of the ISP many customers are totally incapable of implementing NAT and waste IP addresses like they are dollar bills at the strip club.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > more NATs Thus finishing the imprimatur[1]. It is an utter travesty that we haven't junked IPv4 yet. NAT removes the most powerful feature of the internet - that anybody can publish without the permission of a central authority - and I fear too many people in the software industry profit from the resulting centralization to resist things like carrier grade NAT. > the date IPv4 becomes irrelevant That date was 03-Feb-2011 at the latest[2]. > competitive disadvantage. The problem is the people with larger IPv4 address blocks who se this competitive disadvantage as a good thing. [1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ [2] http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
marcosdumay 11y ago
This news means they got the first request that was too big to be accepted. There are still about 300 /24 networks. [1] https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
- russdill 11y ago
  Given the current rate of allocations, those will be gone within a month. https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/index.html https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/index.html

_RPM 11y ago

Your load balancer has a public IP address. You route requests to the internal LAN on one of the "private" IP blocks (10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/8)

Negitivefrags 11y ago
I suppose that it would be that easy if we were hosting a website. We make an online game though so the general solution isn't going to work for us. Sure, in principal it's the same but it's going to require a fair bit more manual implementation in our case, not to mention added latency in a very latency sensitive application.
- blantonl 11y ago
  TCP load balancing would also be an option in your case.
- asdfaoeu 11y ago
  I think your exaggerating the latency effects but anyway you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip. This is really just going to initially hurt service providers which is good because those are the ones who can make large inroads with IPv6
  - jingo 11y ago
    "... you can still buy IPv4 addresses for ~$12/ip." About the price of a domainname? (Note I did not use the word "cost". I create dommainnames all the time at the price of $0.) Given the choice between a domainname and an IPv4 adddress, I would take the IPv4 address. Also, given the choice between a single, routable IPv4 addresses and a block of IPv6 addresses, I would still choose the IPv4 address. IPv4 is "simplicity" in comparison to the complexity of IPv6. IPv6 has features I do not need. Whenever I am granted the choice, I always choose simplicity over complexity. Most of the time the additonal complexity is not needed and can only cause problems in the long run. This is only the opinion of one "consumer". Certainly the "market" may have another opinion.
    - Implicated 11y ago
      > I create dommainnames all the time at the price of $0 Care to explain how?
      - mappu 11y ago
        I'm interested too. My guesses: - http://www.freenom.com/ http://www.freenom.com/ - work-for/own a domain registrar - own a pseudo-TLD like .com.me and are really just creating subdomains - have a large account / custom pricing deals with a domain registrar such that despite a high total cost, the marginal per-domain cost is approximately $0 - only internally-routable domains e.g. /etc/hosts or company-internal DNS server - only alternative DNS roots like Namecoin or tor's .onion domains
    - Chlorus 11y ago
      > "Also, given the choice between a single, routable IPv4 addresses and a block of IPv6 addresses, I would still choose the IPv4 address." Ah yes, which would likely entail the 'simplicity' of NAT...
    - the8472 11y ago
      > IPv6 has features I do not need. Are you forced to use them? If not, where's the problem? I for one love ipv6, it restores the end-to-end principle.
  - scurvy 11y ago
    NATs do induce a fair amount of latency. It's not exaggerated. Watch Paul Saab from Facebook talk about how much better IPv6 performs at NANOG 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s
- the8472 11y ago
  Instead of a layer 7 proxy couldn't you just use static port forwarding and multiplex servers based on ports?

p1mrx 11y ago

Up until now, the rational choice was to dole out as many IPv4 addresses as possible, in order to justify a larger allocation from ARIN. Now that the party's over, we should expect ISPs and hosting providers to become more stingy with their addresses: more NATs, more proxies, higher prices. Any new providers that pop up between now and the date IPv4 becomes irrelevant will be at a competitive disadvantage.

solotronics 11y ago
From the perspective of the ISP many customers are totally incapable of implementing NAT and waste IP addresses like they are dollar bills at the strip club.
pdkl95 11y ago
> more NATs Thus finishing the imprimatur[1]. It is an utter travesty that we haven't junked IPv4 yet. NAT removes the most powerful feature of the internet - that anybody can publish without the permission of a central authority - and I fear too many people in the software industry profit from the resulting centralization to resist things like carrier grade NAT. > the date IPv4 becomes irrelevant That date was 03-Feb-2011 at the latest[2]. > competitive disadvantage. The problem is the people with larger IPv4 address blocks who se this competitive disadvantage as a good thing. [1] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ [2] http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

marcosdumay 11y ago

This news means they got the first request that was too big to be accepted. There are still about 300 /24 networks. [1] https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html

russdill 11y ago
Given the current rate of allocations, those will be gone within a month. https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/index.html https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/index.html