[HN Gopher] Pollution in 1/8 (2010)
___________________________________________________________________
Pollution in 1/8 (2010)
Author : vincent_s
Score : 74 points
Date : 2023-09-18 06:58 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (labs.ripe.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (labs.ripe.net)
| [deleted]
| ceeam wrote:
| Can we FINALLY somehow make IPv6 real? Like, don't license the
| "Internet" providers that don't provide it?
| NavinF wrote:
| There is no licensing for internet providers and that's a good
| thing. Most ISPs in the US already provide IPv6. 45% of users
| access Google over IPv6 and this has been increasing linearly
| for the last decade:
| https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
|
| The final barrier is crappy consumer routers with terrible
| default settings. Not much we can do but wait for these devices
| to die because the average user won't buy a new one until that
| happens
| folkrav wrote:
| Last I checked, most of that IPv6 traffic was mobile, and
| most residential ISPs don't offer IPv6, or if they do in
| areas, they don't always provide IPv6-ready equipment. We're
| in a similar situation up here in Canada - adoption is slowly
| trickling in through mobile networks, but many large ISPs
| still aren't offering it.
| nfriedly wrote:
| > Most ISPs in the US already provide IPv6. 45% of users...
|
| Is that distorted by cellular providers?
|
| I know my wired ISP does not provide IPv6, even when I
| explicitly asked for it. They do CGNAT for most customers and
| assign a static IPv4 to anyone who complains (and then try to
| start charging for it a year later).
|
| The ISP at my previous home was also IPv4 only (although,
| thankfully, no CGNAT).
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Probably a bit, though I have noticed an upward trend in v6
| support with ISPs.
|
| When I was using Spectrum, was pleased to find they had
| (barely-passable) support, SLAAC wasn't a thing IIRC.
| Google Fiber has done well and so did AT&T's offering
| nfriedly wrote:
| Ok, fair enough. If Spectrum and AT&T both support v6 now
| (edit: Comcast/Xfinity too!), then that probably does
| cover a good portion of the wired ISP market.
| NavinF wrote:
| SLAAC doesn't delegate address space. That's why ISPs use
| DHCPv6. You can get a /60 from Comcast and a /48 from
| many other ISPs.
| StressedDev wrote:
| Comcast / Xfinity has had IPv6 for years (probably 5-10).
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Thank you for this.
|
| There is a very strong pattern of variability[1] associated
| with day-of-week. Namely, there is a 5.1% increase of IPv6
| traffic on weekends.
|
| This pattern isn't reflected in Cloudflare's version of this
| chart[2]. Naturally, a curious mind asks, "Why would this be
| so?"
|
| 1. Seasonality - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonality
|
| 2. https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/ipv6
| NavinF wrote:
| Probably because ancient corporate networks are more likely
| to lack IPv6 and people are spending more time on mobile
| data on weekends
| gbxyz wrote:
| (2010)
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Which partially explains how they managed to have a 10 Mbit
| port at an internet exchange. Although that seems weird even
| for 2010? I assume this would be a 100 Mbps or Gbit port
| artificially throttled to 10 Mbps?
|
| That said, 50 Mbps of traffic sounds like a non-issue for
| someone like Cloudflare, so I'm not surprised they took the
| prefix.
|
| Edit: A post by Cloudflare (linked in another subthread here)
| mentioned 10 Gbps of traffic at the time Cloudflare started
| using it. Which, as it would be spread over multiple locations,
| is probably a relatively minor annoyance.
| yard2010 wrote:
| It seems like it's MB to Mb, but still it feels like a small
| number even in 2010 standards
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Has to be a virtual network right? The throttle was for
| safety not cheapness.
| m-app wrote:
| Cloudflare has even seen ERSPAN traffic coming in on 1.1.1.1 due
| to documentation listing that IP as a default:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR4GbRMAWj8
|
| TL;DW: if you need to use example IPs in your documentation, use
| the ones listed in RFC3849 and RFC5737!
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| How do creators/maintainers of these non-renewable resources such
| as IPv4 addresses, computer ports, wireless spectrum, etc. keep
| making the same mistake of allocating such a high percentage of
| the space to specific players, leaving the scraps for the most
| numerous users? Is it just greed, or not good forward thinking?
|
| We engineers have accepted the available private address space
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network> but just think
| about how intuitive it is to an outsider? We make millions of
| people memorize 192.168.X.X to setup their home routers instead
| of the common sense letting the millions use the 1/8 privately?
| Just my opinion, but perhaps holding us back from IPv6 deployment
| is UI people don't see how an ordinary user would be able to
| remember a full "fd00::" address for day-to-day home networking
| or typing into their iPhone.
|
| I don't have as much knowledge in computer ports background
| story, but last I checked
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbe...>
| it's full of defunct, barely-used single players hogging up the
| coveted lower numbers, again leaving the millions to deal with
| possibly stepping on others' toes by using them "unofficially"
| and causing "pollution".
|
| Last example is thinking about how many billions of wifi and
| cellular devices are forced into the tiniest slivers of the
| spectrum <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Uni
| ted_S...>. The engineers working so hard to cram even more
| signals into the 2.4GHz and 5GHz slivers need someone who is
| going to look up and realize it's time to expand the walls of the
| box they are trapped in. The only firm allocations should be for
| physics constraints, such as weather radar, but also means Wifi 6
| should be a non-start due to not penetrating concrete, one of the
| most common materials of home construction.
|
| Given these examples, the argument I'm trying to make is I find
| it insulting to consider the fact that people used the 1/8 block
| "pollution". It's the natural human guess at usable example
| numbers and the like, and much in the same way that repeated
| "human-error" in accidents is being re-argued as "engineering-
| error", I find the misallocation of the 1/8 block to be directly
| the fault of the RFC creators for not giving it to the people.
| NavinF wrote:
| Long term, IPv4 allocation won't matter and it's too late to
| fix that problem
|
| Port numbers are kinda obsolete on the internet since everyone
| uses port 443 to bypass middleboxes that block all the other
| ports in the name of "security". Hardcoding a number for each
| protocol instead of including IP+port in DNS responses was a
| stupid mistake
|
| All consumer devices being forced to share ISM bands is BS, but
| let's be real even if more spectrum was opened up back in the
| 2000s, a lot of devices would still use the same range of
| frequencies because they wanna use the same cheap ICs and
| antennas
|
| Good wifi performance requires an AP in every room. The lack of
| 6ghz penetration is great for high-end setups because it
| eliminates the hidden node problem
| icedchai wrote:
| "SRV" records include the port in DNS responses. They've been
| available for almost 30 years. Unfortunately, outside of a
| few protocols (SIP, XMPP, etc.) they never caught on.
| wrs wrote:
| Your argument is that someone should have tried to predict what
| random numbers people who didn't read the spec would choose,
| and reserve those? That seems...quixotic. Would you reserve
| other numbers in this scheme, like all possible birthdays, just
| in case?
|
| I would argue that if anyone had considered the possibility of
| people randomly choosing 1/8 addresses, the error was in
| reserving 1/8 in the first place. This only happened because
| there were no consequences to making up addresses.
|
| BTW, 10/8 is private, and pretty easy to type.
| creatonez wrote:
| How was this eventually solved? Since this article was published,
| Cloudflare took ownership of 1.1.1.1.
| jiofj wrote:
| There are still people who can't reach 1.1.1.1.
| taneliv wrote:
| Oh no! People from the future are using IPv6-only stack!
|
| Jokes aside, where and why does this happen? Is it a genuine
| issue for some operators to route it?
| jiofj wrote:
| I have seen some CPEs that are configured to use 1.1.1.1 as
| part of some internal static route.
| kxrm wrote:
| Cloudflare is helping to research issues with this space, which
| is part of why they got the allocation.
|
| https://blog.cloudflare.com/fixing-reachability-to-1-1-1-1-g...
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| TL;DR: 10 Gbps of bad traffic at the time they took it over,
| but the main issue seems to have been that many networks were
| unable to reach the IP due to misconfigured equipment on the
| route.
| ggm wrote:
| They didn't "take ownership" the range is vested with APNIC
| labs (check the whois record) they route it with permission and
| share data.
| chtitux wrote:
| Given the number of people now relying on Clouflare 1.1.1.1
| to "get Internet" (ie using 1.1.1.1 as recursive name
| server), I can't imagine APNIC deciding to stop Clouflare
| using this range.
|
| It seems "too late" to revert this decision. Otherwise people
| will experience "Internet stopped working", blaming their
| ISP.
|
| APNIC may decide to keep a working DNS server on 1.1.1.1, but
| ethically, routing traffic to someone else than Cloudflare is
| not great.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| Maybe Cloudflare can return some other ranges for exchange?
| It would be a good deal.
| cornholio wrote:
| Fixed IP addresses change and are deprecated all the time.
| It's of zero concern to APNIC that customers of Cloudflare
| or various ISPs can no longer access the internet because
| they relied on a temporary IP assignment, after the service
| was gracefully terminated and deprecated, with ample lead
| time.
|
| That being said, the use by Cloudflare is an excellent way
| to reclaim this part of the IP space, I don't see why they
| would terminate this collaboration.
| RetroTechie wrote:
| If just temporary assigned to Cloudflare, APNIC shouldn't
| care if it sees a better use for the range. Supporting
| unintended uses only encourages various types of abuse. And
| changing DNS settings is easy enough.
|
| That said, if a lot of people rely on 1.1.1.1 as DNS, it's
| worth considering whether reassignment qualifies as
| 'better' use of this resource. Not to mention the hassle
| caused by making changes to popular [anything].
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| If the misdirected traffic was 50 Mbps, I would expect
| Cloudflare to be able to simply ignore it. (Edit: it was 10
| Gbps in 2018 when Cloudflare took over, which I expect to be an
| annoyance but not a problem if spread over multiple internet
| exchanges).
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Insert joke about they needed Cloudflare to thwart that DDOS
| attack.
| moffkalast wrote:
| "Hey Cloudflare, why did you develop all this anti-DDOS
| software?"
|
| Cloudflare: _distant stare with vietnam flashbacks_
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| > _vietnam_
|
| > Only recently, in 2008, 1/8 was moved from "the IANA
| reserved" to the "IANA unallocated" pool of addresses. In
| January 2010 it was finally allocated to APNIC in order to be
| distributed to Local Internet Registries in the _Asia-Pacific
| region_.
|
| :O
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-18 23:02 UTC)