Slashdot Mirror


MIT No Longer Owns 18.0.0.0/8 (ttias.be)

An anonymous reader shares: MIT no longer owns 18.0.0.0/8. That's a very big block of scarce IPv4 addresses that have become available again. One block inside this /8, more specifically 18.145.0.0/16, was transferred to Amazon.

34 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. RTFA by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Funny

    I did it! I read the whole article. And so did everybody who read the summary.

    1. Re:RTFA by marcgvky · · Score: 2

      Why the hell does MIT need ANY funds from Amazon or anyone else, to switch to IPv6??? Their endowment (what we know of publically) is over $13B USD!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I really vomit when this happens.

    2. Re:RTFA by Software · · Score: 2

      Where did you get the idea that money changed hands?

    3. Re:RTFA by tempest69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because IPv4 addresses are valuable ($10 range currently) Having 16.7 Million of them is a nice chunk of change, letting 65K of them go for free seems to be a breach of fiduciary responsibility by someone.

    4. Re:RTFA by Atzanteol · · Score: 2

      Endowments come with many strings attached. Just because they have $13B USD doesn't mean they are allowed to spend it anyway they like. Most of the funds are earmarked for specific purposes. Additionally it must be invested to ensure future returns.

      It's not like they could just cut a check for $13B...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:RTFA by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because IPv4 addresses are valuable ($10 range currently) Having 16.7 Million of them is a nice chunk of change, letting 65K of them go for free seems to be a breach of fiduciary responsibility by someone.

      They are not resellable like that, what they have is not property just a reserved allocation, and one that can be revoked if they start treating it as resellable property.

    6. Re:RTFA by Pax681 · · Score: 2

      Possession of an IP address does not create a "fiduciary responsibility."

      You seen to have fell off a meme wagon.

      You SEEM to have FALLEN off a meme wagon .. FTFY
      you seem to have fallen off the grammar wagon :P

    7. Re:RTFA by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The legal status of legacy allocations has never been especially clear. They were allocated before the RIRs even existed and long before anyone thought IP addreses would have any value.

      In any case after arguing about it for years most of the major RIRs (ARIN, RIPE and APNIC) have allowed sale of IP addresses subject to some conditions. They have concluded that making IPv4 addresses a marketable commodity is the least-bad way to manage the post-exhaustion era.

      I guess that MIT probablly cut a deal with ARIN allowing them to carve up the block into smaller sub-blocks (allowing them to sell the unused sub-blocks while keeping the used ones) in exchange for agreeing to ARIN taking a role in the address space's management.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  2. Re: But Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nobody envisioned more than a few thousand computers on the Internet. The notion that hundreds of millions would be limiting was ridiculous.

  3. Re:But Why? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 4, Informative

    Technically, just the MIT LCS lab, not even the whole school, had the A block.

    DEC also had a class A address block for a while. HP got this, plus their own, when they bought DEC. At one point, HP had twice as many IP addresses than China.

    The Internet grew way more than any of the founders thought. 4 billion addresses seemed huge back then. Look at the List of assigned A blocks and how A blocks were thrown around in the early days.

  4. Trade. by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone traded 10.0.0.0/8 for it. MIT got a deal, because like /. UIDs, lower numbered ones are better!

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Trade. by skipkent · · Score: 4, Funny

      I disagree.

    2. Re:Trade. by Nick · · Score: 2

      I concur,

      --
      Fuck Ajit Pai
  5. Xerox Too by muldoonaz · · Score: 2

    In the same regard, Xerox no longer owns all of 13.0.0.0/8 either. Amazon has a piece of that pie, too.

    https://whois.arin.net/rest/or...

    1. Re:Xerox Too by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Don't we all, my friend, don't we all...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. Re:RTFMA by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Needs an "M" in there for "misleading". MIT hasn't released the entire /8 back to ARIN; AFAICT from whois queries they've transfered a whole bunch of /16s (20+) directly over to Amazon, all of which are above the 18.145.0.0 line. Given the highly non-contiguous allocations across the upper half of the /8 range the most likely cause is that they've received chunk of cash for giving Amazon all the /16s that they were not currently actively using.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  7. Too many IP addresses by Pasquina · · Score: 2

    MIT claimed all of 18.x.x.x early on and just held onto them. When I was there in 2007, I believe they let my frat have full control of all of 18.236.x.x, no subnets required, for 40 guys.

    For those interested, Wikipedia has an amusing list of original A level IP assignments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  8. Re:But Why? by sl3xd · · Score: 2

    Because IPv4 was designed as a limited proof of concept, with IPv6 being the properly designed replacement.

    IPv4 was supposed to be deader than a can of SPAM by Y2K, and as historical as stacks of punch cards at this point.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  9. Not the only interesting assigment by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ford still seems to own 19...

    Halliburton, Eli Lilly, U Michigan, Prudential, Merck are some of the more notable assignees.

    Some of these must be subnetted and farmed out, but IPv4 is destined for obscurity, so why bother?

    Still, reading RFCs and seeing Jon Postel's name makes me want to tear up. Miss him.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  10. From MIT's official statement by Neuracnu+Coyote · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://gist.github.com/simons...

    "Fourteen million of these IPv4 addresses have not been used, and we have concluded that at least eight million are excess and can be sold without impacting our current or future needs, up to the point when IPv6 becomes universal and address scarcity is no longer an issue. The Institute holds a block of 20 times 10^30 (20 nonillion) IPv6 addresses.

    "As part of our upgrade to IPv6, we will be consolidating our in-use IPv4 address space to facilitate the sale of MIT’s excess IPv4 capacity. Net proceeds from the sale will cover our network upgrade costs, and the remainder will provide a source of endowed funding for the Institute to use in furthering its academic and research mission.

    --
    --
  11. lots of addresses tied up by big companies by lophophore · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is a lot of expensive real-estate tied up in these "8-blocks"

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

    HP, by virtue of their acquisition of the assets of DEC, has 2 8-blocks, which is probably worth a small fortune in real money. 33 million IP4 addresses.

    Most (all?) of these were reserved in the great IP address land grab back in the early 90s.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:lots of addresses tied up by big companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most (all?) of these were reserved in the great IP address land grab back in the early 90s.

      Kids... Sheesh... Try late 70's...

      https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc790

      Now get off my lawn...

  12. Re:But Why? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    The internet back then was mostly dialup. Even most schools would exchange email/news with each other via automated dialup at night when phone rates were lower. Consequently, most of the Internet traffic was store-and-forward. You sent an email, your mail server dialed up your school's computer and delivered the mail to them. The school's computer would hold it until night, when it would dial out to the main university in the area and deliver your mail. The university computer, being a minor hub would dial out more frequently, so after say an hour it would dial out to the man hub in the region and deliver your mail.

    The main hubs were the ones with always-on dedicated links to other major hubs. They were the ones which got the class A subnets. It made sense because then they could then parcel out the IP addresses to the minor hubs and spokes as they saw fit, and thus DNS resolution could always be handled locally (and thus immediately). For those of you who weren't on the Internet back then, because data was mostly being transmitted as store-and-forward, email typically was only slightly faster than postal mail (usually took a few hours to days to reach someone on another continent), and DNS changes could take up to a week to propagate through the entire Internet. So being able to resolve DNS changes locally quickly was a big deal.

  13. Re:But Why? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

    LOL at HP.

    15.0.0.0/7

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  14. Re: But Why? by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Funny
  15. Re: Who gives a fuck by bmxeroh · · Score: 2

    Mod up (+1, Facial)

    FTFY.

    --
    Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
  16. Re:But Why? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    The internet wasn't even public. If they had known Al Gore and the other "Atari Democrats" in Congress were going to come along and spend money opening it to the world, they would have started with something like IPv6. We got IPv4 because it was only for institutional communication and research. MIT is big on both of those, they do lots of work for government, for industry, and in collaboration with other institutions, in addition to their world-renowned research programs.

    In that environment, anybody important enough to even plug in could get a /8. People these days still don't understand what the internet is, no wonder we're out of IPv4 addresses! If the average idiot they let plug in now understood the resource, we wouldn't even be running out of IPv4 addresses for years. We have to switch to IPv6, because the commons is a tragedy.

  17. Re:RTFMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the changelog from the ARIN list if anyone's interested:
    http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2017-April/003050.html

  18. Re:Time to get off IPv4. by PhotoJim · · Score: 2

    Or, let's just all migrate to IPv6 and be done with this.

  19. Re:But Why? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 4, Informative

    14.0.0.0/8 and 15.0.0.0/8 could be combined to 14.0.0.0/7 (or 15.0.0.0/7 if you prefer). 15 and 16 can't be combined. Do it in binary and it will be more obvious.

  20. Sweet! by sootman · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have, like, TONS of 192.168.x.x addresses and I only use a few. How can I sell the rest?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  21. Re:But Why? by Lost+Race · · Score: 2

    15.0.0.0 is not /7-aligned. 14.0.0.0/7 and 16.0.0.0/7 are valid, but 15.0.0.0/7 is not.

    Even if 15.0.0.0/7 were valid CIDR notation, it would include 14.0.0.0 - 15.255.255.255, not 15.0.0.0 - 16.255.255.255 as was intended.

  22. Re:But Why? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    Back in the good old days when the Internet was used mainly for colleges and government agencies. These colleges will reserve large blocks for themselves. I went to a small college and they had a Class B and two Class C IP address ranges (Back in the time Class B was X.X.0.0 and Class C was X.X.X.0) giving the colleges more than enough IP address for the who institution. Hack in the late 1990's every PC was connected to an unprotected Static IP address for their PCs.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  23. Re:Cool by Zocalo · · Score: 2

    Actually, this is entirely on ARIN rather than ICANN these days, and they absolutely allow transfer of IPv4 space for money (subject to a few criteria) and have done so for some time as part of their approach to dealing with IPv4 exhaustion. There's also nothing to say that these IPs have never been used by MIT - for all we know they were previously in use but have been freed up as part of MIT's IPv6 rollout - and since Amazon needs IPv4 space for their growing cloud platforms and can clearly afford this many IPs in one go it makes sense for MIT and Amazon to do a deal rather than parcel them out piecemeal to multiple users.

    IPv4 space has been a resource with a sell by date for some time; at some point (probably still some way off) IPv6 will gain critical mass and the value of IPv4 space will plummet, but until then its basically a game of chicken against that unpredicatable deadline. You can sell now, and maybe get $10/IP (for suitably large allocations), or you can wait a bit longer and gamble on either making more money for your IP space as people get more desperate, or wiping out because IPv6 has finally taken off and demand for IPv4 space has dropped. MIT could easily have held on to the IPs for a few more years, and would likely have make a lot more as a result, but by doing a deal now they've actually helped Amazon grow their cloud and put the IPs into productive use again. Sure, MIT likely made a lot of money on the deal, but that's still better than having the IP space sitting around doing nothing at all.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!