I've been doing a moderate amount of research on getting an ASN and ipv4/6 blocks so I can BYOIP and host third-party services without being locked into the cloud provider I was using at the time the third-party configured DNS. That has led me down various rabbit holes in which I started learning how the Internet actually works.

IMO the Internet actually sucks ass

Why is there so much bureaucracy and cost involved for someone to own an IP address? I should be able to connect to the network and acquire an IP address as easily as I can buy a merckle-tree-backed pointer to an IPFS image, or vote in a US election. Why do I have to pay hundreds of dollars for Internet Numbers conjured from thin air by a US nonprofit to be resold by a RIR? How fucking moronic is it that IPV4 was created with substantially less capacity than there were humans on Earth, got adopted, wasn't immediately fixed or abandoned once it became obvious that the Internet would be used globally, was irresponsibly allocated, introduced various unofficial but consequential practices (eg NAT), ran out and got expensive, and STILL is widely used alongside ipv6.

What is the point of having a centralized system for governance centered around ICANN/IANA when they are so wildly inefficient and incapable of governing? Fuck 2000€ these are freaking made up numbers that I should be able to buy for pennies with an email address, government ID, and credit card.

▲

47282847 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Sounds like you might want to dig into what these organizations do for its members besides assignment and management (not sale! you cannot own IP addresses) of shared number resources, to get a better understanding of their membership fees! I am a big fan of RIPE as an organization and appreciate their work (and less so of ARIN but I have little exposure).

Financial reports are public, and fee structures including salaries and all work areas and work groups are decided and voted on by its members. The highest body of the RIPE non-profit is the general assembly.

I manage two RIPE LIRs, and signup was not more work than joining any other member association. There is an annual invoice, and various payment processor options for that. I wouldn’t want it to be less “bureaucratic“ since I benefit from their processes and transparency. If they didn’t guard it, all of it would be in the hands of a Musk-like soulless broken person hiding behind a tax-evading corporate structure with zero accountability. No thank you.

▲

weitendorf 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> not sale! you cannot own IP addresses

True, but I mean, I don't own my own body either I suppose, I am just borrowing its particles from the rest of the universe. That's only a useful distinction to make if you plan on killing me.

My personal situation is probably not very representative of most Internet users or entities interacting with the organizations that control the Internet, but I think as wireless technology improves and end-users' ability and incentive to self-host grows, they will run into the same problems that I do.

Bottom line: I don't want to spend unreasonable amounts of time and money dealing with the idiosyncracies of the Internet Protocol and related technology, when I'm trying to do something that should be easy, like get an IP address that I can move between ISPs and cloud providers, or run an internet service from my home. It just feels incredibly wasteful to have to pay significant amounts of money to rent a number when it should be possible to claim or cheaply register one of 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 such numbers.

Then once I nut up and pay for a small slice of the infinitely many numbers available, I have to deal with completely avoidable, godawful technical debt that only exists because the people I'm supposedly paying to govern me were so lazy that they allowed an obvious slow-motion trainwreck to play out with IPv4 over decades. They're still so lazy or cowardly or incompetent that after 20 years IPv6 availability is still only around 50%. Good thing there is an unnecessarily complicated organizational model between ICANN/IANA/RIR so that everybody can point fingers somewhere else.

I don't want to pay for conferences and subcommittees and elaborate ceremonies for electing Vice Treasurers of RIRs, nor do I want to play tamagotchi with ranges of numbers. I just want a fucking number that allows other Internet users to connect with the stuff I put behind that number.

I would prefer a more functional system for acquiring said numbers than one that feels all warm and fuzzy about letting the people profiting off renting numbers elect the leaders of the organizations with the authority to end rentiership of the numbers.

▲

47282847 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> it should be possible to claim or cheaply register one of

RIPE is not the level to interact with as an end user for IP resources. LIRs act as intermediaries towards such end users. The reason why 255 IPv4 addresses is the smallest chunk you can route these days is a technical one, but apart from that IPv4s are not meant to be moved with end users. This is what DNS is for.

As a hosting or access provider, you are meant to acquire single IP addresses or blocks from LIRs, which in turn assign and route them to a host. It is a federated, layered organizational structure.

I get that you are upset, but I wonder who you are upset at exactly? It is not RIPEs mandate or responsibility to design Internet Protocols. If you want to argue for a better design, you should direct it at the IETF working group based on a study of the current tradeoffs, goals and technical limitations? “I want a different internet!“ Ok sure, go contribute! This openness and collaborative approach is the amazing thing about the Internet. If you have a great idea with technical merit, you will be welcomed with open arms and heard.

	▲	weitendorf 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When I as an end-user am unsatisfied with what I can and cannot do on the Internet, I only have a relationship with my LIR, who has no direct relationship with the central Internet authority for addressing those problems, because they only interact with an RIR. I cannot call my ISP and ask them to put pressure on the entities responsible for accelerating IPv6 adoption. Actually, my LIR wants different things than I do, in some cases the opposite. Why replace old hardware or code for IPv6 if we have enough IPv4 to not need to? Why increase adoption of IPv6 if I'm making money renting IPv4 addresses? Why let end-users run websites from their home? Why make it easy for end users to BYOIP or reserve static IPs? To solve my problems I have to become a LIR because it's the only way to get IP addresses that I get to keep if I switch LIR. Then I can interact with the RIRs and secure addresses in bulk. But I still have no direct relationship with the IANA who I want to influence. This time, I cannot just become a RIR like I did a LIR because there are only five total in the world. That's a core part of the bullshit - there is no way for the people with influence over the Internet to ever be accountable to me. I can only ask things of people who are incapable of delivering the changes I want. That's why to me, if an RIR is charging me $2k to do something I should be able to do as an end user for free or almost free, I see the RIR as a mere alias of the IANA/IETF. The other problem is I don't want to be a LIR, and to the extent I act as one, it will be on a small scale. The RIR is accountable to the fulltime, important LIR who don't represent my interests as an end-user. All I'm left with is trying to walk in the front door and ask a committee of people accountable to the ones profiting off of my problems to do a bunch of work. Great system. All that being said, you're right to suggest giving it a shot.
	▲	eqvinox 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 255 IPv4 addresses is the smallest chunk you can route 256, both the zero and all-ones addresses are perfectly usable, and that matters in 2025 IPv4 exhaustion times.

▲

globalnode 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

At least you don't live in australia, where the govt invested in a national broadband network so every aussie could have affordable and fast internet. Guess what we have. A broken cesspool of providers where its going to cost you in excess of $1K p/a to keep a connection to the internet going. Well done straya. Its the same with anything where theres the potential to fleece consumers.

▲

tracker1 3 days ago | parent [-]

Depending on where you are in the US, it isn't much better. I'm paying $140/month for a 2gb/120mb asymmetric cable connection... I'm paying about that much again for a dedicated server on OVH mostly because they block self-hosting on residential connections, and it costs more than the difference to go to a business connection with a /28 cidr, so I'm renting a server with a better connection instead.

I've been a bit lazy and haven't finished my migration off of google and MS services... I have mixed feelings about my testing of nextcloud and the like. I've got a pretty solid mail solution (mailu) going, but even with that I don't have it on a domain/address I rely on. I'm mostly using a wildcard forward on one of my domains so I can assign a different address to most online and offline accounts as reference.

▲

doublerabbit 3 days ago | parent [-]

$50 a month and still on 2mb ADSL. Living in the centre of the city right next to a hotel that owns an 10Gbit feed. Literally ten steps from my apartment to the cities main telephone line exchange

All three domestic providers do the "we are working in your area" which where it comes to my building "nah" is said and the promises of fast broadband suddenly disappear.

I've been living here 8 years now. Same thing said each year.

▲

tracker1 3 days ago | parent [-]

That sucks... I was stuck in a similar spot for several years at one point. ADSL is definitely on the not fun side of things. Do you know who that hotel's uplink is? You might be able to talk to them about running a direct line, though this will probably cost about $10k or more just to get the line run to your home.

▲

doublerabbit 3 days ago | parent [-]

I've tried. Their line is connected to the same exchange as my ADSL and via BT who are tasked to upgrade UKs domestic to fibre by the end of 2026.

I have even asked if I provided the equipment run a Line-of-Sight links from the hotel to my apartment. Perfect range and advantage point but nothing other than some PR fluff of "it may harm the public".

	▲	db48x 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, a hotel manager isn’t going to want your antenna on their roof. From their perspective it’s unnecessary and weird and therefore out of the question. BT sells internet service, transit, and buried cables. You want to do what the hotel did and buy a buried cable from them, and then buy transit. You’ll need to do like the guy in the video did and rent some space in their colocation facility to put your gateway in. Plug your buried cable into your gateway, plug your gateway into their router, turn on BGP, etc. They also offer an intermediate service called a “leased line” which is a buried cable plus transit plus they handle all of the networking for you as if you were a consumer. The hotel chain might have gone that route as well, although there are clear advantages to having your own AS. You can figure out exactly what they did if you connect to their guest WiFi and run `traceroute -A`… Of course your apartment manager (or the owner) might not agree to let you bury your cable on their property. They might even have an exclusivity agreement with the cable company. This could even be the reason why no other ISP is available in your apartment building.

▲

johnecheck 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

As if our only options between dysfunctional bureaucracy and corporate absolutism.

It's not the formal processes and openness I take issue with. IPV4's ubiquity and the damage it does (funneling real money away from all of us towards ISPs) is a failure of governance.

Though in a way it's not. It's failing me, but it wasn't designed to represent me. It's failing our species, but it wasn't designed to represent us. Who do you think it was designed to represent?

The outcome speaks for itself.

	▲	weitendorf 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I for one love living in a world where ISPs, middlemen, and random internet jackpot winners were able to extract rent through a highly equitable, transparent governance model AND meet yearly at the Hilton.

▲

jasonvorhe 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Just look at the origins of each of these technologies and the times in which they were created and you have all the answers you need. I'm really surprised whenever I read takes like these.

▲

weitendorf 3 days ago | parent [-]

Of course everything is a product of its time, and in 1999 or any other world where the Internet is more of a cool new thing than serious business, it makes sense. But that was 26 years ago.

I am pretty sure the guys charging hundreds of dollars for IP addresses that cost them nothing to produce should be able to set up stripe, an identity verification product, and otherwise automate onboarding. Also, instead of writing giant process documents and slow-walking such wildly difficult problems as "allow domains to end in .cool" through infinitely nested committees they could try wielding their supreme governance over Who Owns Numbers And Names by killing off IPv4.

As long as ICANN/IANA remain in charge of Internet governance and operate with >$100mm budgets [0] "it made sense 25 years ago" is not a valid excuse IMO.

[0] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy24-funding-sou...

▲

jve 3 days ago | parent [-]

Just a little correction per IPv4 wikipedia [1]: Introduction 1981; 44 years ago

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4

	▲	tracker1 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I was going to look up the same... I thought it was a little older than that... it's worth remembering that in 1981 there was no DNS yet, and even for dialup BBSes there were only a handful in the entire country as Hayes modems were new that year. Hell, for years a lot of business email services were dialup, grab packets, send packets and read/reply offline. This is the same year the IBM PC was first released, and many people felt that would only see fairly limited sales. It wound up selling over 20x projections. Nobody at the time really thought there would be a need for even more addresses. Not to mention the additional overhead of a wider network on the hardware at the time.