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

AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#131

Post by Aeolun »

candiddevmike wrote: post #77
wongarsu wrote: post #51

This finally puts real pressure on software and services to work on IPv6 only. I wouldn't be surprised if within 1-2 release cycles lots of distributions suddenly update just fine with just IPv6, package mangers can download packages over IPv6, lots of APIs gain solid and well-tested IPv6 support, etc.

Businesses and organizations are holding IPv6 back, not consumers. No one I talk to is prioritizing IPv6 migrations or spending money to upgrade gear that will support it. Maybe some net new stuff might get it, but for most businesses IPv4 is and will be the default, simply because they can't be bothered to do something different.

Hmm, I use IPv4 mostly because nobody in their right mind can remember a IPv6 address…

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#132

Post by kccqzy »

anderspitman wrote: post #47

Hot take. IPv6 adoption is never going to hit 100% because SNI routing covers most of the cases people actually need. If UDP functionality is necessary QUIC will be used. I wish this wasn't the case. It would be nice if the software was good enough that more people were enabled to self host.

Not a hot take at all. We don't need 100% IPv6 adoption because we can't control what people do in their private networks. If a load balancer supports IPv6 that's good enough, even if the load balancer talks to the backend over IPv4.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#133

Post by supertrope »

anderspitman wrote: post #47

Hot take. IPv6 adoption is never going to hit 100% because SNI routing covers most of the cases people actually need. If UDP functionality is necessary QUIC will be used. I wish this wasn't the case. It would be nice if the software was good enough that more people were enabled to self host.

In practice the Internet does not deliver IP packets. Only UDP or TCP is universally supported. Some firewalls, security appliances, filters, and proxies limit end to end connectivity to just TCP 443. Everything over IP has turned into everything over HTTP.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#134

Post by efitz »

alberth wrote: post #76

This was expected, and rent seeking. AWS over the last decade has spent $ billions buying up ASN blocks. I've never been one to use the word "rent seeking", but owning IPs is the ultimate rent seeking cloud business. Domain names can change registries but if you own the underlining IP being used (and there's a depleting supply of them) - it's a great business to charge rents on. https://www.techradar.com/news/amazon-…

Looking at it a different way, IPv4 addresses are scarce so it makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage, rather than millions of individuals owners, many or most of which would not necessarily be using them at any given time.

Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource.

But if you don’t want to “rent” IP addresses from anyone, you can still find blocks for sale. Last time I checked (last year) class C blocks were going for $15k-$20k.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#135

Post by efitz »

efitz wrote: post #134
alberth wrote: post #76

This was expected, and rent seeking. AWS over the last decade has spent $ billions buying up ASN blocks. I've never been one to use the word "rent seeking", but owning IPs is the ultimate rent seeking cloud business. Domain names can change registries but if you own the underlining IP being used (and there's a depleting supply of them) - it's a great business to charge rents on. https://www.techradar.com/news/amazon-…

Looking at it a different way, IPv4 addresses are scarce so it makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage, rather than millions of individuals owners, many or most of which would not necessarily be using them at any given time. Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource. But if you don’t want to “rent” IP addresses from…

BTW AWS specifically allows you to bring your own IP addresses.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-byoi...

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#136

Post by Aeolun »

preommr wrote: post #27
Operyl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hobby customers aren't using AWS, by and large. And it's only a matter of time before we see more and more costs for IPv4 down in these tiers as well.

Counterpoint: My hobby projects all use AWS because that's what I am familiar with, and they have the cheapest prices. I also reuse a lot of resources like a database to further save costs.

AWS have many things, but they most definitely do not have the cheapest prices. Unless you are pricing in convenience.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#137

Post by ttt3ts »

amluto wrote: post #124
aednichols wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.

AWS NAT gateway is $0.045 per hour plus $0.045 per GB. The hourly fee seems mostly okay - for largish users, one or two per region is fine. $0.045 per GB is nuts . That’s $20.25/hour or $14580/mo for 1 Gbps. One can buy a cheap gadget using very little power that can NAT 1 Gbps at line rate for maybe $200 (being generous). One can buy a perfectly nice low power server that can NAT 10Gbps line rate for $1k with some c…

Bit confused. Couldn't you just run a Linux VM to do your NAT and only pay normal egress?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#138

Post by debugnik »

tptacek wrote: post #109
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, rather than simply routing IP packets and then forgetting them, you need to statefully inspect every TCP segment and every supposedly connectionless UDP conversation, you need to maintain state for every live conversation, and you need to mitigate DOS with all those resources. At that point, you might as well be running a Layer 7 Firewall or an Intrusion Protection System.

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.

Which is why game networking libraries put a lot of emphasis on NAT traversal, forcing NATs to recognise the "connection". And why game console manufacturers tell users to just forward all incoming traffic unmanaged by the NAT to the console.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#139

Post by brickteacup »

amluto wrote: post #16

> 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.

Not to mention the absurd fact that accessing (IPv4) AWS APIs from a private subnet requires paying for either a NAT gateway or an interface endpoint (we got bitten by sending a ton of Kinesis traffic through a NAT gateway once)

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#140

Post by doublerabbit »

kccqzy wrote: post #127
pantalaimon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you need to pull anything from GitHub…

Then direct your anger at Microsoft, not Amazon.

Why not both?

Both are dominating the internet-cyberspace and both are screwing it over for everyone else.

Post reply on HN