Most applications will be able to move to v6 eventually. Hopefully moves like this will push that development.

Even already, I think you can get away with doing almost everything v6 with a much smaller number of ipv4s for legacy traffic. I say that but still largely use v4 for everything, so maybe I'm not one to talk.

Unless you need to pull anything from GitHub…

Then direct your anger at Microsoft, not Amazon.

Why not both?

Both are dominating the internet-cyberspace and both screwing it over for everyone else.

Please stick to the topic at hand. Not every mention of a big tech company needs to devolve into a general bitch fest.

There's a collective action problem around IPv4 vs IPv6. Talking about Azure/Microsoft/GitHub and its lack of IPv6 support is very much an interrelated problem. It's ridiculous to think of noting downsides/trade offs as just kvetching.

Why do you need a public IPv4 address to pull from GitHub?

GitHub has no modern IP support, so a system without a legacy IP is unable to pull anything from GitHub.

That's the idea, you route github through a legacy route and use normal route for everything else.

It's ISPs who are the main problem, not applications.

Not software applications, applications of network usage (though I see why it would be reasonable to misunderstand)

Both

Most of the internet is rent seeking

VPNs just resell internet under a “more private than the next” unverifiable claim, and hope they get enough sycophants believing it

Most of YC this year resells access to ChatGPT

Its the game

That's not rent seeking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

I see, I understand the distinction then, so why would would owning and reselling IP addresses be rent seeking then, if my examples also are not

Because for better or worse, those services are transforming the output. Arguably in not a very valuable way but they are transforming it nonetheless. Whether or not you find that transformation useful doesn’t change the fact it is happening. IPs are IPs no matter what way you are cutting it. There is no other universal way to address internet resources yet (as adoption is still slow on ipv6), so this is rent-seeking in the same way a toll road on public roadway that has existed for 20 years is rent-seeking.

Edit: furthermore, in both of your examples you can just go to another provider or not use those services. If you are locked in to AWS, you HAVE to pay this price.

I doubt many people care about private aspect of the VPN. They usually want to access services which are inaccessible from their primary IP.

I'd say that VPN is a way for Internet to work around artificial obstacles.

Looking at it a different way, IPv4 addresses are scarce so it makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage, rather than millions of individuals owners, many or most of which would not necessarily be using them at any given time.

Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource.

But if you don’t want to “rent” IP addresses from anyone, you can still find blocks for sale. Last time I checked (last year) class C blocks were going for $15k-$20k.

BTW AWS specifically allows you to bring your own IP addresses.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-byoi...

> makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage

What you have described is effectively a China-style ICP license[1]. Unless you are willing to give a big name cloud provider $x per month, you shouldn't be able to put a service on the internet?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license

Only on legacy IP. We're trying to kill it.

A bit of pain will be necessary to finally get modern IP across the line of mainstream usage.

"We" are not doing anything of the sort. 11 years into IPv6 and you still can't single home a network behind v6. Much like DNSSEC the purists refuse to admit that it has basically been a failure outside of very specific use cases.

I have a /24 of v4 just so I don’t have to run NAT at home. My Apple Watch has a real, globally unique IP address.

Is this valuable use of IPv4 space? I think yes.

"Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource."

That isn't one company's call, it's past time for the DOJ to step in.

I guess you feel that AWS should pay for the IPs and then give them to you for free. Makes sense.

IP addresses are supposed to be free! The RIRs are in the business of handing out addresses to whoever applies for them if the applicant can show that they have a reasonable use for the addresses. But as the IPv4 addresses eventually run out, AWS will then buy addresses directly from whoever has them. This is allowed, but a bit dubious, since if someone aren’t using their addresses, it would make more sense to return them to the RIR to be reassigned. But if AWS owns all the addresses, and nobody can get any more, it makes sense for AWS to start charging for the addresses. It would also make sense for AWS to halt and delay any IPv6 adoption, so we should watch for that.

> IP addresses are supposed to be free!

just like the air is supposed to be free!

In reality, nothing can be free. The cost was initially not being paid for, because initially there's just quite a bit of addresses, and there wouldnt have been any quarrels.

I maintain that the world is being polluted because things aren't free. Imagine if every cubic inch of air, water and land is owned. You would not be allowed to pollute! You'd pay for your use of it!

You've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress too many times, and taken away the wrong lessons.

IP addresses aren't a physical object with a cost to produce them.

No one is saying that maintaining the fiber optics and routers should be free though, that's why we pay ISPs.

Not true at all you have apply for asn, you have pay for registration and ips seperately. Which needs to be renewed every year. Also you cant sell to anyone you want. You can transfer ownership but it goes through arin.

Also few legal documents needed to register.

https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/#registrati...

Had AWS not gone around offering to beat any offered price for IPs things might be a lot more reasonable right now. You can't complain that you had to pay a ton for a scare resource when you were the ones throwing gasoline on the scarcity problem.

They even did backroom deals to steal large blocks of IP space, most notably from the HAM radio community.

> spent $ billions buying up ASN blocks.

You can't buy/sell/trade "ASN blocks". The only people handling "ASN blocks" are the 5 RIRs (APNIC, RIPE NCC, ARIN, AfriNIC and LACNIC) and IANA.

It also seems that your use of "rent seeking" doesn't match established use. It normally refers to people extracting money for things far beyond their actual value. The IPv4 market is working pretty well on a supply vs. demand price feedback loop, i.e. the prices are in fact just reflecting the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. The term "rent seeking" does not fit that situation.

> You can't buy/sell/trade "ASN blocks". The only people handling "ASN blocks" are the 5 RIRs (APNIC, RIPE NCC, ARIN, AfriNIC and LACNIC) and IANA.

You absolutely can sell ASNs or ASN blocks, just like you can sell IPs.

Want to sell an ASN? Ask the buyer for money. When the money is in your account/escrow, transfer the ASN to them. Get money. Sale complete.

But that’s besides the point, this has got nothing to do with ASNs.

> You absolutely can sell […] ASN blocks,

No you can't, because you can't actually acquire an ASN *block* to begin with.

Which is the point of my comment. Only the RIRs handle blocks of ASNs. As a non-RIR entity you can get individual ASNs, or multiple individual ASNs, but not an ASN block.

> It also seems that your use of "rent seeking" doesn't match established use.

No, OP used it exactly correctly. It's the textbook definition.

> It normally refers to people extracting money for things far beyond their actual value.

No, it doesn't. The use was popularized in Wealth of Nations (yes, the original) and it refers to, as the name implies, renting out land.

I buy land. Once I've done that, I extract wealth from the economy from the economy while putting nothing new in. There's a finite amount of land.

This contrasts with investing in businesses (which allows them to buy capital, thereby generating further wealth), work, and other forms of income which generate wealth for the economy.

In broad strokes, rent-seeking behavior is unproductive, while work, investment, etc. are productive.

> It normally refers to people extracting money for things far beyond their actual value.

That's not what "rent-seeking" means at all.

Rent-seeking is extracting wealth from a system without creating anything. It's a term meant to differentiate profiting via productivity/adding value (eg. manufacturing a better product and outcompeting others) and profiting via extracting value from others without adding anything (eg. buying out all of the manufacturers of a product and leveraging your monopoly position to jack up prices).

Amazon haven't created any value here - they own enough of a stock of a scarce, in-demand resource that they can charge a great deal for it. It's the definition of rent-seeking.