Live data from Hacker News

AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical services don't support IPv6

old.reddit.com

11–20 of 245 posts

Re: AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical services don't support IPv6

#11
post #7
post #3

IPv6 and Python3 are case studies in how not to roll out a new version unless you're cool with multi-decade upgrade windows.

Is there an alternative, though? Both Python3 and IPv6 both solve problems that would have been at least as painful to do incrementally, IMHO.

Agreed, while I recognise that both look bad, I'm skeptical as to how bad they actually are. Some comparisons against good examples of these sorts of transitions would be good.

Re: AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical services don't support IPv6

#12
post #3

IPv6 and Python3 are case studies in how not to roll out a new version unless you're cool with multi-decade upgrade windows.

They're more a case study on institutional inertia and not providing a good justification for businesses to upgrade. Gotta sell the benefits.

I think cloud providers charging for IPv4 is a great stick, since the initial carrots (easier subnetting, huge networks, multiple IPs per host, encryption, etc) didn't work. I do wish they provided NAT64 services though.

Re: AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical services don't support IPv6

#14
post #4

Anyone that is surprised by this behavior from AWS probably has very little experience using it. The whole console is full of dark pattens to get you to setup larger than needed defaults and accidentally leave things running.

I'm always surprised that people think they're getting a good deal from a guy who spent a billion dollars to launch a dick into space. The days of the door desk are long gone.

Re: AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical services don't support IPv6

#17

Do the other cloud providers give you IPv4 endpoints for free? I didn't think that was the case. (ie I thought AWS was just falling into line with the others on charging). As for the "critical services not supporting IPv6" in the post I was quite surprised that it's such a short list of things that don't work - I would have expected more. They've obviously made a ton of progress.

> Examples include:

I get the feeling this is far from an exhaustive list. I think this person just mentioned two things that they had run into and could say didn’t support IPv6 without having to look it up.

Re: AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical services don't support IPv6

#19
One day will come, when network admins will be so happy to finally turn off IPv4 on their stack. When router manufacturers will feel happy to support only IPv6. It is definitely coming within my lifetime.

So, these intermediate steps are just cooking the final dish.

Peace. ;)

Re: AWS to start charging for IPv4 usage, but critical services don't support IPv6

#20
post #7
post #3

IPv6 and Python3 are case studies in how not to roll out a new version unless you're cool with multi-decade upgrade windows.

Is there an alternative, though? Both Python3 and IPv6 both solve problems that would have been at least as painful to do incrementally, IMHO.

IPv6 provided some features people needed (larger addresses), made some changes born from experience (removing IP-level header checksums in favor of packet checksums like those in UDP and TCP, removing fragmentation), and then bundled in a pile of mandatory added complexity (DAD, SLAAC and router advertisements rather than DHCP, initially mandatory IPsec).

If IPv6 had left out the mandatory added complexity, and just focused on the larger addresses and cleanups, it would have been easier to adopt. The other changes could have happened via other standards, rather than bundling them all into "IPv6".

Post reply on HN