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

111–120 of 245 posts

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

#111

Post by mdaniel »

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…

Don't overlook SSM https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/session-...> which doesn't require sshd nor public access to get onto a machine and one can opt in to a bunch of audit logging if that's your jam. They also have some "ansible-y" behavior about running playbooks against groups of instances, but I haven't had good experiences with that process in order to recommend it. It's just a small bonus that one can also hop onto an instance from the AWS Console when using SSM, since it is websocket based and not "ssh from the browser"

The agent is Apache 2 if one wanted to build, enhance, or audit what it does: https://github.com/aws/amazon-ssm-agent#readme as is the local binary that awscli uses for the websocket handshaking: https://github.com/aws/session-manager-plugin#readme

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

#112

Post by redox99 »

Had IPv6 been a superset of IPv4, we would have switched 10 years ago.

IPv4 1.2.3.4 becomes IPv6 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4

Owning IPv6 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 means you also own IPv4 1.2.3.4, because addresses that begin with 4 zeroes mean they also own the equivalent IPv4 address.

Owning 2.2.2.2.1.2.3.4 means you do not fully own an IPv4 address. In this case you'll have a NAT IPv4 address.

If you connect to 1.2.3.4 you use the IPv4 protocol. If you connect to 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 or 2.2.2.2.1.2.3.4 you use IPv6 packets that are identical but larger header to accommodate the bigger address.

As long as you have an IPv6 that begins with 4 zeroes, you are fully compatible with everything, without needing any kind of NAT. If you have an IPv6 2.2.2.2.1.2.3.4 then you'll need NAT to connect to IPv4 addresses, but can connect directly to IPv6 addresses.

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

#114

Post by blueflow »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #53
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. ;)

Once GitHub works with ipv6 I’ll start to take it seriously.

Once my IPv6 worked i stopped taking GitHub seriously.

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

#115

Post by hughesjj »

Sebguer wrote: post #46
londons_explore wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IP addresses were intended to be a public good. The fact that AWS has monopolized so many of them, and now that they own a significant fraction of them is deciding to charge for them. It's ridiculous.

> IP addresses were intended to be a public good.

Were they though? The first few blocks auctioned off all went to large tech institutions

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

#116

Post by hot_gril »

redox99 wrote: post #112

Had IPv6 been a superset of IPv4, we would have switched 10 years ago. IPv4 1.2.3.4 becomes IPv6 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 Owning IPv6 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 means you also own IPv4 1.2.3.4, because addresses that begin with 4 zeroes mean they also own the equivalent IPv4 address. Owning 2.2.2.2.1.2.3.4 means you do not fully own an IPv4 address. In this case you'll have a NAT IPv4 address. If you connect to 1.2.3.4 you use the IPv4…

I agree and have said similar things. The address exhaustion thing is an excuse for tons of unrelated changes in v6, plus resetting ownership.

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

#117

Post by ianlevesque »

redox99 wrote: post #112

Had IPv6 been a superset of IPv4, we would have switched 10 years ago. IPv4 1.2.3.4 becomes IPv6 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 Owning IPv6 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 means you also own IPv4 1.2.3.4, because addresses that begin with 4 zeroes mean they also own the equivalent IPv4 address. Owning 2.2.2.2.1.2.3.4 means you do not fully own an IPv4 address. In this case you'll have a NAT IPv4 address. If you connect to 1.2.3.4 you use the IPv4…

This comes up every time, but it doesn't make any sense. Routers, software, IT professionals, would've all been just as happy to not support IPv4.1 as they have been to not support IPv6. At this point though the inflection point has already been passed adoption-wise and AWS needs to just do the thing already.

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

#119

Post by dluga93 »

bell-cot wrote: post #113

Hmm... How much is human psychology - Scarce & Expensive is Desirable; Cheap & Plentiful is Low Class - discouraging migration from IPv4 to IPv6?

I think you have it the wrong way around.

Scarce & Desirable is Expensive; Low Class & Plentiful is Cheap

It doesn't always go both ways.

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

#120

Post by GabeIsko »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #105
ianburrell wrote: post #101

I'm not sure what the AWS services not supporting IPv6 has to do with charging for public IPv4 usage. Private IPv4 is still free so can access services over endpoints. NAT gateways cost the same and can access services over public IPv4 network. AWS also added IPv6 NAT64 gateway so it should be possible to run IPv6-only internally and still access AWS services and the rest of the Internet.

This would be acceptable if this internal route was already configured for free. However, it appears VPC endpoints have their own pricing[1], at which point one must carefully consider whether paying up for the IPv4 address is the better option. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/privatelink/pricing/

I'm curious, why can't you use an elastic IP?
Post reply on HN