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

61–70 of 245 posts

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

#61

Post by noirscape »

ryandvm wrote: 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.

At least with Python3, there was eventually Python 2.7 to permit a compatibility layer to move over.

It took ages, but there was at least a "best effort" to help people write code that could be easily moved between 2 and 3. (In spite of apparent behavior from the Python developers at the time).

IPv6's hard break with IPv4 means that the switchover likely won't happen anytime soon.

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

#62

Post by deathanatos »

Same story on every cloud, AFAICT.

Admittedly this was a couple years ago, but last I checked, Azure managed PG didn't support v6. (We're mostly moving away from Azure for other reasons … so I'll probably never re-check.)

GKE on GCP doesn't really support v6. (If you selected the v2 "data plane" when you created your cluster, then it can, assuming the vnet can. If not, then not yet, and there's no way to upgrade data planes presently.) Peering VPCs doesn't work with v6-only, meaning if I want to peer VPCs, I pretty much am forced to solve all the problems v4 has with that … which defeats the entire point of a v6 peering. Cloud NAT doesn't support v6, so I'm super not clear on how ULA VPCs are supposed to work.

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

#63

Post by hristov »

exabrial wrote: post #54
throw0101b wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * "OMG Every device needs a publicly addressable IP!!!" > ok, but why? So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/ etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). > Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network? I don't know why this misconception is so wide spread: globally addressable ≠ globally reachable . Firewalls still exist w…

> So we can get rid of STUN/ICE/etc and make peer-to-peer easier. All you're left with is hole punching through your SPI firewall (no worse than today). Do you really think Roomba is going to let you run your Robot Vacuum without contacting, er permission, from their data center in Virginia?

Currently my roomba is behind a nat and still insists on contacting their main data centers. And if i turn off the internet to my nat the roomba will run but none of the advanced cell phone related features of the roomba will work, even though my cell phone is connected to the same wifi network in the same nat as the roomba.

So this is completely unrelated. IP addressing schemes will not change the business methods of large consumer device companies.

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

#64

Post by jjjjmoney »

exabrial wrote: post #55
jjjjmoney wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ok, but why? Because NAT breaks a lot of services. > Is that going to change with ipv6? Yes. You no longer need NAT, so port negotiation is much easier (even when inbound is blocked) > Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network? Common misconception! Even without NAT, the router can have port/traffic policies. There's just no address translation happening. There's a lot of good stuff abou…

[flagged]

You might not but NAT has many different flavors, and many people don't get to choose which is used on their network.

https://serverfault.com/questions/208522/what-is-strict-mode...

This can particularly play havoc with sensitive protocols like STUN. I believe many game consoles make use of this when in multiplayer matches. I have personally run into this using OpenBSD's pf, but I'm fortunate enough to have access and the known-how to fix it for my consoles.

It's one of those things that's fine until you run into "edge cases," and unfortunately NAT configurations can introduce a lot of undefined behavior from the user perspective.

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

#65

Post by temp_account_32 »

exabrial wrote: post #39

[flagged]

For me it's not about any of that, it's more about a restricted supply of IPv4 that only big corporations own and having to pay ever increasing rent for them

Anti-ipv6 is like the NIMBYism of IP address space, why can't we just "build" more to inflate the supply and crater the prices of existing ones?

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

#66

Post by quaintdev »

exabrial wrote: post #39

[flagged]

Can't believe this is top comment here on HN

> Do you really think IoT device makers are going to allow your smartphone to connect directly to your device

This happened because of IPv4 NAT.

You might not be facing issues in your country but here in India millions are behind NAT and it degrades QoS

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

#67

Post by lxgr »

exabrial wrote: post #39

[flagged]

> * "It's so hard to initiate a connection to something behind a ipv4 NAT firewall!! "

> Is that going to change with ipv6?

Yes, because stateful firewalls are much easier to consistently traverse than NAPTs. This alone is a huge advantage for P2P applications.

Behind a (usually symmetric) CG-NAT, I have no way to directly connect to anybody else behind one without a relaying server (which are expensive and add needless latency).

> Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network?

No, but nobody is suggesting that.

> ipv6 is a distraction from the really problem of control and privacy

IPv6 is also doing nothing to combat pollution by microplastics and overfishing.

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

#69

Post by icehawk »

exabrial wrote: post #39

[flagged]

I have enough PI IPv4 space that I don't have a horse in this race but here we go:

> ok, but why?

Because it makes things easier.

> Is that going to change with ipv6?

It already has.

> Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network?

Doesn't mater if I _am_ or not. I want the option. (And before you say port forwarding: try forwarding ports when its your ISP doing the NAT)

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

#70

Post by phpisthebest »

jjjjmoney wrote: post #48
exabrial wrote: post #39

[flagged]

> ok, but why? Because NAT breaks a lot of services. > Is that going to change with ipv6? Yes. You no longer need NAT, so port negotiation is much easier (even when inbound is blocked) > Are you _really_ just going to allow random traffic into your network? Common misconception! Even without NAT, the router can have port/traffic policies. There's just no address translation happening. There's a lot of good stuff abou…

>> The biggest one is people seem to equate NAT = router/firewall. This is absolutely not the case,

I dont think anyone equate that, but IPv6 proponents refuse to recognize that decades and decades, especially in home users, and SMB space, NAT was a layer of the security model, often times one of the biggest

Right or wrong is irrelevant, that is/was the reality

Just tossing IPv6 as a replacement for ipv4 with out factoring that in while simply screaming into the void "NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL" will be of little comfort to the elderly retiree that has their home computer ransomwared, or the small business that is put under due to a cyber attack because the ipv6 address was strait on the public internet

Post reply on HN