161–170 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$40/mo is outrageous? We spend thousands a month on AWS and drive most traffic thru a single NAT gateway. It's rock solid and it "just works" without any fuss. Totally worth it.
Leasing an IPv4 is 0.40 per month. The 39.60 on top is just their margin.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yep, and they should. aws has never really been suited to the hobbyist. does it work for that? of course. is it most cost effective? absolutely not. is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes.
> is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes. There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective. Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UDP is connectionless precisely so you can build novel stateful protocols on it. There’s no promise in UDP that you’ll be able to statelessly monitor it.
UDP is actually more expensive to NAT than TCP is. The reason is UDP fragmentation, which is my vote for the worst, and least forgivable, design error of TCP/IP. Instead of putting the fragmentation in L4 (like QUIC now does) and including a UDP header on every fragmented packet in a datagram, UDP only includes the header on the first packet. With fragmentation happening; firewalls, NATs, and end-hosts have to buffer…
It has a legitimate purpose in old-timey systems which have bespoke MTUs on each link, but now the usual thing is to use 1500 bytes for WAN traffic, which is the generic Ethernet MTU, and reserve larger sizes for intra-datacenter communications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes. There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective. Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.)
I run a number of personal projects on AWS entirely on their serverless offerings and pay $0 outside of domain registration as I'm well within their free tiers. That seems pretty cost effective.
> 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.
> 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.
$40/mo is outrageous? We spend thousands a month on AWS and drive most traffic thru a single NAT gateway. It's rock solid and it "just works" without any fuss. Totally worth it.
> 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.
$40/mo is outrageous? We spend thousands a month on AWS and drive most traffic thru a single NAT gateway. It's rock solid and it "just works" without any fuss. Totally worth it.
But I think the point is more that it's outrageous compared to the marginal costs.