Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#121

Post by rswail »

1123581321 wrote: post #23
paulddraper wrote: post #11

Hijaking this to say I hate VPC. I hate VPC. Applying 1990s NATting to next gen cloud service? Gotta give the greybeards something to do. The purpose of NATting is to deal with limited IP addresses, a problem that has been solved for a long time now. AWS makes me create a VPC, but I certainly don't set up some central-point-of-failure NAT or pay AWS to do it.

If VPC isn’t important to you, haven’t you made one catch-all VPC for your account a long time ago with good-enough general settings? It shouldn’t come up that often unless you are in a position to benefit from the feature.

AWS does that for you by auto setting up a default VPC in each region.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#122

Post by rswail »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #26
paulddraper wrote: post #11

Hijaking this to say I hate VPC. I hate VPC. Applying 1990s NATting to next gen cloud service? Gotta give the greybeards something to do. The purpose of NATting is to deal with limited IP addresses, a problem that has been solved for a long time now. AWS makes me create a VPC, but I certainly don't set up some central-point-of-failure NAT or pay AWS to do it.

Why would you think its 1990s NAT? Launch an instance with a public IP and there's no central-point-of-failure. The "Internet Gateway" isn't an actual physical device.

The IGW is not the NAT gw. You need both for private networks outgoing public connections.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#124

Post by rswail »

lmm wrote: post #93
res0nat0r wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default VPC setup in each region just has a two public subnet configuration by default. You boot up an EC2 instance and it has a public IP address reachable from the internet (if you open up the security group) and a private IP address. If you want a totally private subnet to put your back end app servers on so they are not routable from the world as an extra layer of safety, then you can do that too. Or, if you'…

It's not really any safer though. If I want to say that server A and B can connect to each other and connect out to the outside world, and the outside world can connect in to A but not to B, I should be able to just do that, without having to give each server multiple addresses. Addressing should be decoupled from access control.

AWS security groups allow rules to either be IP CIDR based or you can have rules that refer to other security groups, ignoring the IP addresses.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#126

Post by Operyl »

fareesh wrote: post #123

How does one even know if they are using EC2-Classic?

Accounts haven't had the ability to spin up Classic unless you were grandfathered in, iirc, and I also believe people have been getting emails about this all for quite some time. Most likely, if you're using EC2, you're not using Classic.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#127

Post by KirillPanov »

lillecarl wrote: post #118
wmf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could use a NAT64 gateway to do that. At that point you're trading one form of NAT for another so there's less value in going IPv6-only.

It would be nice if NAT64 was embraced everywhere, I love typing IP addresses because I'm lazy, but we need IPv6 right now. There are still too many rough edges going V6 only though, like if I set my own DNS servers, will they resolve A records to NAT64 AAAA records? And how will the regular Windows sysadmin deal with registering DNS records?

We continue to suffer for the boneheaded failure to make NAT64 a mandatory, required element of every IPv6 router.

DJB saw all this with crystal clarity almost twenty years ago:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

Note that when he wrote this, NAT64 didn't even exist. NAT64 is basically standardization of "make IPv6 work the way DJB said it should".

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#128

Post by orf »

mwcampbell wrote: post #21
res0nat0r wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about instances you want completely isolated with no public IP addresses and only RFC1918 IP's, but can reach out to the internet? Nat Gateway has been around for ~6 years now and is highly available and a managed service so you just need to click a couple of buttons. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/12/introduci...

At $0.045/hour, NAT gateways are expensive. This sets up perverse incentives, as it's cheaper to keep wasting public IPv4 addresses. If anyone from AWS is watching, I suggest that you make the base fixed price of NAT gateways way cheaper, and maybe add a small extra charge for EC2 instances and Fargate tasks with public IPs.

It’s $30 per month, which is not expensive and is gonna be a rounding error to most users.

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#129

Post by murgindrag »

duskwuff wrote: post #19
ComputerGuru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is pretty much the first time I've heard of AWS really deprecating something Amazon has deprecated and then put to the grave multiple payment services. Torrent support in S3 is being killed off with little notice.

> Torrent support in S3 is being killed off with little notice. Did anyone ever seriously use it? It never made much sense to me -- if you're trying to optimize for performance, S3 is already pretty good and a CDN can make that even better; if you're trying to optimize for cost, you wouldn't be using S3 in the first place.

I never used it, seriously or otherwise, but I appreciated having it there:

1) Universal torrent support is prerequisite to broad adoption. Having S3 be part of that network is nice.

2) It gives a fallback to exploding costs if something I do goes viral. I have the option of a weekend hackathon.

... and so on.

It's one of those features I like even if I don't use.

(And no, that's not actually common of features -- most of AWS, I wouldn't mind if it was not there)

Re: Amazon EC2-Classic Is Retiring

#130

Post by murgindrag »

uluyol wrote: post #48
psanford wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SimpleDB is still supported though. You can still make new SimpleDB domains. Thats part of what people love about AWS compared to Google Cloud. Google is quick to kill off services it finds no longer convenient for it to run. AWS has historically gone out of its way to keep old services running even as it releases new, better alternatives.

Any examples?

My family is on Google Apps free edition.

Google has been doing it's best to make my life miserable. It recently killed Google Voice in the free edition, so my younger child can no longer get a phone number. With zero warning.

I've been through this each time I've (tried) to use Google for anything critical, so I've stopped.

I mentioned a family example since B2B would be confidential. But I can count at least a half-dozen instances of Google discontinuing something an employer has relied on, leading to a world of pain.

My general cloud policy is AWS, Azure, or anything-but-Google. I have a similar anti-Oracle policy too. Once you're burned a few times, you find that some companies are too expensive to do business with.

Post reply on HN