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

AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#121

Post by Bluecobra »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #63
aednichols wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.

For example, rather than simply routing IP packets and then forgetting them, you need to statefully inspect every TCP segment and every supposedly connectionless UDP conversation, you need to maintain state for every live conversation, and you need to mitigate DOS with all those resources. At that point, you might as well be running a Layer 7 Firewall or an Intrusion Protection System.

> At that point, you might as well be running a Layer 7 Firewall or an Intrusion Protection System.

If you go down this path consider using Transit Gateway so you can route multiple VPC traffic to a central security VPC in a region. I’ve done this a Palo Alto VM and it seems to work well.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#122

Post by yieldcrv »

alberth wrote: post #76

This was expected, and rent seeking. AWS over the last decade has spent $ billions buying up ASN blocks. I've never been one to use the word "rent seeking", but owning IPs is the ultimate rent seeking cloud business. Domain names can change registries but if you own the underlining IP being used (and there's a depleting supply of them) - it's a great business to charge rents on. https://www.techradar.com/news/amazon-…

Most of the internet is rent seeking

VPNs just resell internet under a “more private than the next” unverifiable claim, and hope they get enough sycophants believing it

Most of YC this year resells access to ChatGPT

Its the game

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#123

Post by KAMSPioneer »

capableweb wrote: post #107
decasia wrote: post #103

So I have a tiny personal website hosted on ec2. Right now the DNS points to the server's public IPv4 address. But I don't really want to pay $40+/year for an IPv4 for my personal project. Does anyone have experience switching a small personal site to IPv6 only in 2023? I'm guessing the vast majority of my (North American/European-based) friends and visitors can probably connect just fine to an IPv6 address. I wish I…

According to Google ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ), 60% of word-wide users wouldn't be able to visit your website. In the US, it would be about ~50% of users, while in Europe it's ranging from 30% (France) to 98% (Spain) who wouldn't be able to visit the website. But yeah, I'd do what you say in the bottom of your comment. Add AAAA records and then see how many people uses ipv6 compared to ip…

I understand that Movistar, the largest Spanish ISP, is currently deploying IPv6 in beta at the moment. I expect that will trickle down to the various resellers of Movistar's network shortly after. Hopefully that will get that 98% down in the near future. :(

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#124

Post by amluto »

aednichols wrote: post #54
amluto wrote: post #16

> A new blog post shows you how to use Elastic Load Balancers and NAT Gateways for ingress and egress traffic, while avoiding the use of a public IPv4 address for each instance that you launch. It would be nice if this came with reasonably priced NAT gateways. The current pricing is outrageous.

NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.

AWS NAT gateway is $0.045 per hour plus $0.045 per GB. The hourly fee seems mostly okay - for largish users, one or two per region is fine.

$0.045 per GB is nuts. That’s $20.25/hour or $14580/mo for 1 Gbps. One can buy a cheap gadget using very little power that can NAT 1 Gbps at line rate for maybe $200 (being generous). One can buy a perfectly nice low power server that can NAT 10Gbps line rate for $1k with some compute to spare. One can operate one of these systems, complete with a rack and far more power than needed, plus the Internet connection, for a lot less money than $14580/mo. (Never mind that your $14580 doesn’t actually cover the egress fee on AWS.)

A company with a couple full time employees could easily operate quite a few of these out of any normal datacenter, charge AWS-like fees, and make a killing, without breaking a sweat. But they wouldn’t get many clients because most datacenter customers already have a NAT-capable router and don’t need this service to begin with.

In other words, the OpEx associated with a service like this, including the sysadmin time, is simply not in the ballpark of what AWS charges.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#125

Post by smileybarry »

decasia wrote: post #110
capableweb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Google ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ), 60% of word-wide users wouldn't be able to visit your website. In the US, it would be about ~50% of users, while in Europe it's ranging from 30% (France) to 98% (Spain) who wouldn't be able to visit the website. But yeah, I'd do what you say in the bottom of your comment. Add AAAA records and then see how many people uses ipv6 compared to ip…

Sigh, so basically it's impossible to switch without shredding an already tiny audience. I'm sure it won't be a nice UX either to have a "can't connect to this IP" error in someone's browser. IPv6 has been around for so long now, I'm disappointed it doesn't have a little bit higher adoption.

And if all else fails, you can put something like Cloudflare in front of it to handle IPv4 traffic.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#126

Post by amluto »

Analemma_ wrote: post #19
foobarian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, speaking of lots of public IPs, most of MIT's old class A is now owned by Amazon :-( NetRange: 18.32.0.0 - 18.255.255.255

Why :-( ? There's no way MIT was using more than a tiny fraction of that /8; now it's actually being put to real use, and MIT probably got some money out of it. Everybody wins.

MIT was using it. Not efficiently, but MIT sold addresses that were in use at the time due to what appeared to be IT ineptitude.

It was also shortsighted. It was a massive resource, MIT presumably sold it for under $200M (I assume far under), and now AWS plans to rent the addresses at a rate that will be around $600M per year if they manage to rent them all.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#127

Post by kccqzy »

pantalaimon wrote: post #119
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even already, I think you can get away with doing almost everything v6 with a much smaller number of ipv4s for legacy traffic. I say that but still largely use v4 for everything, so maybe I'm not one to talk.

Unless you need to pull anything from GitHub…

Then direct your anger at Microsoft, not Amazon.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#128

Post by jiggawatts »

candiddevmike wrote: post #77
wongarsu wrote: post #51

This finally puts real pressure on software and services to work on IPv6 only. I wouldn't be surprised if within 1-2 release cycles lots of distributions suddenly update just fine with just IPv6, package mangers can download packages over IPv6, lots of APIs gain solid and well-tested IPv6 support, etc.

Businesses and organizations are holding IPv6 back, not consumers. No one I talk to is prioritizing IPv6 migrations or spending money to upgrade gear that will support it. Maybe some net new stuff might get it, but for most businesses IPv4 is and will be the default, simply because they can't be bothered to do something different.

It’s worse than that: new software and hardware is being developed or rolled out right now that is incapable of working on an IPv6 network. Not just unable to use it, but actively incompatible — failing to run if other devices use IPv6!

This was an issue with Azure’s PostgreSQL service, which would fail if you deployed other unrelated IPv6 services in the same virtual network.

We need a guild of software engineering so that the people responsible for this can be summarily ejected from it.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#129

Post by kccqzy »

cferry wrote: post #79

The only barrier for me to go IPv6-only is those VPS that are provided with a single /128 IPv6, and I do not know of a service that would offer IPv6 tunneling other than HE, that requires an IPv4 endpoint. The day I get a full /48 or /64 with my VPSes, I'm ready to drop IPv4.

Amazon gives you more than a single /128. So your complaint is irrelevant if you actually use AWS.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#130

Post by blibble »

dijit wrote: post #113
blibble wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it already has stateful firewall so that's: source ip, dest ip, protocol, source port, dest port, connection state (say 16 bytes total) doing NAT too is what, 3 more bytes per connection (8 bits for an offset into an IP table and 16 bits for the translated port)

NAT and Stateful firewalling are commonly bundled together (especially on home systems) but I would not go so far as to say “NAT has a stateful firewall”- I hear such takes all the time and its really frustrating; usually in threads regarding IPv6, incidentally it is usually programmers who think they understand everything about networks because they know how tcp operates.

> but I would not go so far as to say “NAT has a stateful firewall”-

> I hear such takes all the time and its really frustrating

maybe you'd be less frustrated if you understood what people were saying, because I didn't say that

AWS already do 1:1 NAT and there's additionally a stateful firewall, which necessitates connection state tracking

adding the extra few bytes to do port translation shouldn't vastly increase the memory required

> incidentally it is usually programmers who think they understand everything about networks because they know how tcp operates.

from someone who has written a commercial packet filter: in terms of complexity, TCP blows the preceding layers of the stack out of the water

Post reply on HN