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

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

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 245 posts

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

#31

Post by _trampeltier »

flumpcakes wrote: post #26
ramshanker wrote: post #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. ;)

I don't think that will ever happen... Too many big businesses squatting on their IPv4 allocations to ever want to spend the money to implement IPv6. They don't need to worry about allocation running out or charging for IPs because they've got theirs. They would need to be forced to move by customers, probably through an ISP being IPv6 only. And that probably won't ever happen as the customers of those ISPs would dro…

Not just that, there are other networks too on IPv4. In industry automation, IPv6 is no thing at all yet.

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

#32

Post by radarsat1 »

To be fair I have a bunch of instances with public IP addresses just so I can ssh into them easily. This situation made me look into how I'd get into these instances otherwise and indeed you can set up an appropriate endpoint and then run "aws ec2 instance-connect" to make a tunnel that gets you an ssh connection without needing the public IP, so just like that my needs for public IPs actually goes down pretty drastically.

On the other hand, on my first try I couldn't get "instance-connect" to work and it turned out I needed a different package "awscliv2" which I had no idea existed.. I've been using "awscli" for the longest time and didn't know there was an alternative and more up to date package available. What a mess.

Also, when running the new one apparently it does a bunch of weird docker magic in the background instead of just being a normal Python program so not sure what to think but I guess it works. If anyone knows a leaner solution to opening an instance-connect tunnel I'd love to know.

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

#34

Post by calamari4065 »

radarsat1 wrote: post #32

To be fair I have a bunch of instances with public IP addresses just so I can ssh into them easily. This situation made me look into how I'd get into these instances otherwise and indeed you can set up an appropriate endpoint and then run "aws ec2 instance-connect" to make a tunnel that gets you an ssh connection without needing the public IP, so just like that my needs for public IPs actually goes down pretty drasti…

It spins up docker containers to create an ssh connection?!

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

#35

Post by rescbr »

throw0101b wrote: post #25
JoshTriplett wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> […] and then bundled in a pile of mandatory added complexity (DAD, SLAAC and router advertisements rather than DHCP, initially mandatory IPsec). SLAAC and RA reduce complexity as you no longer need 'extra' infrastructure (DHCP) to get going: plug in and the router sends the information and you're done. You also get rid of the complexity of STUN/ICE/ etc as you no longer need NAT, so you just need hole punching for…

Once you add up the real world factor of half-assed implementations and bad business/tech decisions, you end up with DHCP and NAT (or its IPv6 cousin, NPT) to solve issues.

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

#36

Post by oarsinsync »

gray_-_wolf wrote: post #21
paulgb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think that if IPv6 would just be IPv4 with bigger addresses, the rollout would be much easier. Sure, you would still need new hardware, but the basic operations would still be the same as IPv4. Currently, it is far from that.

Are there recommendations that result in IPv6 looking like something more than just IPv4 with bigger addresses? Yes.

Is there anything stopping you from effectively running IPv6 networks the same way as you run IPv4 networks, but with larger address pools? No.

You can do NAT66, you can do DHCPv6, you can run every network as a /120 (IPv6 equivalent of a /24 - 256 addresses) if you want to as well.

You can even (outside of whatever prefix is delegated to you) only use numbers for the host addressing portion if you want to, and not bother with letters.

Just because the recommendations and standards say you SHOULD do things a particular way, it doesn’t mean you MUST.

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

#38

Post by betaby »

marcinzm wrote: post #28
throw0101b wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] and then bundled in a pile of mandatory added complexity (DAD, SLAAC and router advertisements rather than DHCP, initially mandatory IPsec). SLAAC and RA reduce complexity as you no longer need 'extra' infrastructure (DHCP) to get going: plug in and the router sends the information and you're done. You also get rid of the complexity of STUN/ICE/ etc as you no longer need NAT, so you just need hole punching for…

Except you still need all that complexity as you need to support IPv4 as well.

There is NAT64 for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64 Many mobile operators use that, in USA that is Sprint/T-mobile, Bell in Canada. All modern OSes support that pretty well.

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

#40

Post by londons_explore »

milesward wrote: post #13

It's called a price increase folks, don't overthink it.

Ip addresses have an actual market value now. They cost 50 cents a month to lease.

AWS is charging $3.60 per month. Which isn't orders of magnitude off when you consider AWS probably has a poor utilization rate (can only advertise /24's) and profit margins to consider.

Post reply on HN