Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Amazon acquires 3.0.0.0/8 from General Electric
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Amazon acquires 3.0.0.0/8 from General Electric

«134

Comments

  • MikeAMikeA Member, Patron Provider

    Amazon DNS included with Prime coming soon.

  • Amazon entered to open DNS market?

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • 3.3.3.3 of course.

  • Joke all you want but IPs are appreciating in value better than shoecoins.

  • 3.4.3.4 ?

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • dfroedfroe Member, Host Rep

    @Yura said:
    Joke all you want but IPs are appreciating in value better than shoecoins.

    Until the day when google.com will be v6-only. That's my personal speculation that some day they might be brave enough similiar like they did with https. And then most users and providers will be v6-capable almost instantly - like it happened with https.

  • WebProjectWebProject Host Rep, Veteran

    @Mridul said:
    3.4.3.4 ?

    Nope, the DNS servers are:
    3.3.3.3
    3.3.4.4

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • I wait for 6.9.6.9 and 5.7.5.7

  • @Daverno said:

    @deank, how many checkboxes he ticked?

    Thanked by 2Hukin [Deleted User]
  • deankdeank Member, Troll
    edited November 2018

    At least, he wasn't a scammer, so I let it go.

    Checked 2 boxes. Wasn't going to check the 3rd since he wasn't a scammer.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • @deank, you are a big softie

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • deankdeank Member, Troll
    edited November 2018

    There are the checkboxes.

    1. Is the kid mentally stable?
    2. Does he triple-post more than few times? (Capacity of learning or lack thereof)
    3. Does the kid intend to scam?
    4. Attempts to divert attention once found out.
    5. Ban hammer.

    2 checkboxes are okay in my book until he loses the plot.

    Thanked by 2Yura [Deleted User]
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    Just asking: and why, with which valid, sensible reason would GE have had a /8 in the first place? Why would one company no matter how large have more IPs than quite many whole countries?

  • hostdarehostdare Member, Patron Provider

    jsg said: Just asking: and why, with which valid, sensible reason would GE have had a /8 in the first place? Why would one company no matter how large have more IPs than quite many whole countries?

    legacy blocks ?

    maybe assigned long ago 90s

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @hostdare said:
    legacy blocks ?

    maybe assigned long ago 90s

    OK.

    and why, with which valid, sensible reason would GE have had a /8 in the first place even in the 90ies? Why would one company no matter how large have more IPs than quite many whole countries?

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • @hostdare said: jsg said: Just asking: and why, with which valid, sensible reason would GE have had a /8 in the first place? Why would one company no matter how large have more IPs than quite many whole countries?

    legacy blocks ?

    maybe assigned long ago 90s

    Yeah, in the early days (even before the 90s), big American companies and universities were given huge IPv4 subnets, many more addresses than they would ever realistically need/use.

    I'm not a big fan of Amazon, but at least now, those addresses are more likely to be used.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • Ford has some millions too :(

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    Thats just like IPv6 nowadays, where people thought that there will be enough IPv4 at that time. And I believe the industry used classes subnet mask in the old days and it is a huge waste.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • HukinHukin Member
    edited November 2018

    6.6.6.6
    6.0.0.6

    Some Special

    For Daverno.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • jsg said: and why, with which valid, sensible reason would GE have had a /8 in the first place even in the 90ies? Why would one company no matter how large have more IPs than quite many whole countries?

    Because! (unfortunately)

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • jackbjackb Member, Host Rep

    @jsg said:

    @hostdare said:
    legacy blocks ?

    maybe assigned long ago 90s

    OK.

    and why, with which valid, sensible reason would GE have had a /8 in the first place even in the 90ies? Why would one company no matter how large have more IPs than quite many whole countries?

    My understanding is in the beginning nobody thought the internet would become mainstream. By the time that realisation came in those legacy /8s had been assigned too long to take them away.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @jackb said:
    My understanding is in the beginning nobody thought the internet would become mainstream. By the time that realisation came in those legacy /8s had been assigned too long to take them away.

    Yet GE is perfectly capable of letting go their /8 ... if they are payed enough.

    Plus: At some point in time it was understood perfectly well that IPs are not an unlimited resource and that in fact whole regions of our planet suffered a severe lack of IPs. But GE (and others) just didn't care although they did not even need their full ranges.

    My point isn't against GE nor is it about how IPs were looked at in the early phase. It is about two aspects:

    (a) The way IPs were looked at back then was provably wrong. No problem, we are humans and humans sometimes err. But we didn't understand only last week that we were wrong. We understood it many years ago but we did not try to at least mitigate our earlier wrong judgement by treating IPs as a limited resource and by accordingly trimming down those early large allocations.

    (b) The ugly truth (hosters certainly know) -> IPs == $$
    But those IPs weren't somehow mined, produced or earned; they were a "public property" just handed out. So should large corporations be allowed to sell them and to sell them to make profit (as opposed to e.g. serving most urgent need)? Wouldn't it be wiser to take those large ranges back (without compensation) and to then distribute them through some international authority?

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @jsg said:

    @jackb said:
    My understanding is in the beginning nobody thought the internet would become mainstream. By the time that realisation came in those legacy /8s had been assigned too long to take them away.

    Yet GE is perfectly capable of letting go their /8 ... if they are payed enough.

    Plus: At some point in time it was understood perfectly well that IPs are not an unlimited resource and that in fact whole regions of our planet suffered a severe lack of IPs. But GE (and others) just didn't care although they did not even need their full ranges.

    My point isn't against GE nor is it about how IPs were looked at in the early phase. It is about two aspects:

    (a) The way IPs were looked at back then was provably wrong. No problem, we are humans and humans sometimes err. But we didn't understand only last week that we were wrong. We understood it many years ago but we did not try to at least mitigate our earlier wrong judgement by treating IPs as a limited resource and by accordingly trimming down those early large allocations.

    (b) The ugly truth (hosters certainly know) -> IPs == $$
    But those IPs weren't somehow mined, produced or earned; they were a "public property" just handed out. So should large corporations be allowed to sell them and to sell them to make profit (as opposed to e.g. serving most urgent need)? Wouldn't it be wiser to take those large ranges back (without compensation) and to then distribute them through some international authority?

    Thanks Bernie.

    Francisco

  • deankdeank Member, Troll
    edited November 2018

    Thanks Bernie.

    Endis Nigh.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • @Daverno said:
    I wait for 6.9.6.9 and 5.7.5.7

    What about 6.9.6.9 & 6.6.6.6

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    Those are supposedly legendary IP addresses. No one in sane mind is going to let those go.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    "Bernie"?

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • Sanders

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    The guy who was scammed by the Dems.

    Thanked by 1[Deleted User]
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @angstrom said:
    Sanders

    Ok, thanks.

    I guess that

    jsg said:
    Wouldn't it be wiser to take those large ranges back (without compensation) and to then distribute them through some international authority?

    triggered some and was (mis)taken as "communist". No it isn't. I'm based on the simple fact that IPs are not in any way produced by their holders but they are a public resource meant for public use. Plus the entities holding large IP ranges did (at least back then) not pay any significant amount for those IPs other than some administrative fees. So accordingly they should not be allowed to make profit on those resources.

    Plus and more importantly IP ranges were given by some public hand who was in charge of administering them - and if large ranges, say below /16, are exchanged in some way that exchange should go through the authority just as they were handed out by the authority.

    The point isn't about communism or capitalism. It's simply about orderly and adequate proceedings. Something that isn't owned in the first place (but was "on loan") shouldn't be sellable. Or in other words: The decision who gets any IP range that gets freed should not be with the entity that "borrowed" it (like say a range of phone numbers) but it should be made by some authority and based not on profit aspects but rather on e.g. aspects of need.

Sign In or Register to comment.