What is happening in hosting industry globally and last years and what to expect

Started by richardBranson, Aug 07, 2022, 09:54 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

richardBransonTopic starter

Looks like a polar fox, but not fat yet. That is, every year we think that it is bad, but then the next one comes, in which it becomes even more difficult.



Short:   
    IPv4 is ending, but we don't seem to care.
    The shortage of semiconductors causes a semi-increase in prices.
    MS tightens the screws even further.
    Import-substituting Baikal strikes back.
    There are VPN blockings in a scenario aspiring to Chinese.
    Remote control changed VDS consumption.
    And the Antimonopoly Service attacks the largest IT companies (at least one good news for the user).

Almost all of these cause an increase in costs, and it is you, of course, who will pay for them in the end. Because that's how the economy works.

IPv4 addresses

They have been running out for years now, and there have been rumors on the market for years that they urgently need to be bought in order to ... To not understand what. Someone thinks that this is new gold, and collects them directly in bundles for permanent use, in order to sublease them later. And somebody, like us, continues to rent them, not even thinking of acquiring ownership.

My personal opinion is that the market is overheated. IPv4 is needed for key infrastructure nodes, because through them compatibility with old devices and old software must be ensured, for networks and simply for those who cannot see a normal transition to IPv6 without them.
It seems to me that the rise in the price of IPv4 is very good at promoting IPv6 to the masses, and only old routers somehow slow down this process. I think that this bubble will remain for a couple of years, and then everyone will use IPv6. And IPv4 addresses will go where the beautiful 5-digit ICQs went. It's like with telephony: it began with two or three digits and only then became the one we have come to now.

In general, we are waiting for the price of IPv4 to rise from $2 to $20 per address and the subsequent transition to v6.

Although! IPv6 is needed mainly for IoT and any user devices that need dense 5G networks in parallel. So if activists burn down 5G towers now, IPv6 adoption will slow down. In general, if you see a person who is wooing the crowd, he may have invested in IPv4. It's the weirdest conspiracy theory I've heard though.

Now addresses are rising in price at a rate of about 20% per year. If they double in price - we will survive without revising the pricing policy, above - we will introduce restrictions like "no more than one IPv4 in one hand, then paid or a lot of free IPv6." We are now issuing any number of addresses for money, but in fact we will do no more than 5–10 IPv4, the rest will be IPv6.

I think that Facebook and Google will be tied to IPv4 for a long time, because they need compatibility. The rest of the smaller companies won't need it pretty soon.


MS and Pirates

One way or another, all commercial structures working with their software, in terms of transfer within SaaS to end users, work according to SPLA. About the fact that there is a natural police state,
I already mentioned censorship in this post. But it's not even that MS wants to have access to a virtual machine with its real-time license auditing software, but that now they are tightening the screws on the license even further. It seems to me that this will be a reform of the SPLA, but I could be wrong. MS has not announced its intentions yet.

The following happens: there were agreements with a number of partners who distribute software in the form of a lease in the Microsoft SPLA channel. For some, these were multi-year contracts, which are now simply not renewed. That is, there have been agreements for many years, but it has not yet been possible to obtain new ones.
They don't make new ones either. I think that this is a future change in the principle of software licensing. The current system leaves a lot of holes for using pirated versions. It's no secret that many hosting providers have desktop Win, and, in theory, MS could not stand this for a long time. Now we expect a shortage of licenses from hosting providers and resellers.
Further, most likely, there will be a consolidation of the market. The enlargement of the market, together with the policy of MS "everyone is responsible for everyone", will mean that those hosting providers that are "leftist" will still have to figure out a way to move to *nix or buy licenses. Maybe the hosting industry will break into "no support", "old versions" and "licensed". In any case, prices should rise as a result of such a phenomenon.

There are three companies that can sign agreements on behalf of MS in the form of a tripartite agreement: these are 1C, Mont and Softline. Now, as far as I know, they are all forbidden to do this, that is, they cannot renegotiate ordinary contracts. Now you can enter into sublicensing, which, according to the MS agreement, means full access to the infrastructure.
Just imagine that one big host that sublicenses MS software enters into a deal with another, smaller one, and the smaller one has to transfer admin rights to all machines to it. This looks rather strange so far. The second option - MS consolidate cloud services, it looks somehow a little calmer. But I don't really understand either.


Semiconductor shortage

Everything is simple here. Quarantine, factories stopped, and now only those who ordered them in advance receive semiconductors. All server hardware manufacturers ordered them in advance, but they just got more expensive. Guess who's going to pay for this.

To a greater extent, the price increase concerns self-assembled hardware: there is already a serious shortage of processors used in disk controllers.

The waiting time for orders has increased. If a 2 years ago the delivery was made in three to four weeks, now the optimistic forecast is six to eight weeks. But we already have some deliveries in the future, according to the forecast, are approaching 15 weeks.
  •  

Novel Web Solution

With IPv6, providers are still slowing down, they are not willing to turn it on, people write letters to providers, and they do not respond. I also wrote to my friend to start issuing the prefix recommended by the Internet Council and make IPv6 static.
No response from our provider. Moreover, they consider the service not in demand, and if problems arise, technical support asks to disable IPv6, they do not deal with IPv6 problems.

IPv6 puts less strain on hardware than IPv4, and better latency, and everyone benefits from it. IMHO, it is required to introduce IPv6 forcibly at the legislative level, if the administrator does not want to deal with IPv6, common sense and standards do not apply to him, and he spreads myths and illiteracy about IPv6, then fire him. In fact, everything is configured no more complicated than IPv4. But people have incomprehensible psychological barriers to IPv6.
  •