So I have a tiny personal website hosted on ec2. Right now the DNS points to the server's public IPv4 address. But I don't really want to pay $40+/year for an IPv4 for my personal project. Does anyone have experience switching a small personal site to IPv6 only in 2023? I'm guessing the vast majority of my (North American/European-based) friends and visitors can probably connect just fine to an IPv6 address. I wish I…
AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
171–180 of 377 posts
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. It’s odd they would announce charging for dedicated IPv4 while not having a free shared egress solution (unless I’m misunderstanding). I would expect them to reduce NAT pricing in the long run, but who knows.
I think that as a business and given the fact they are now charging for a previously free service (public IPs), offering a now paid service as free would nullify the reasons for doing what they are doing. They don't owe anyone anything for free.
I always love this comments. We pay them literally hundreds of thousands a year.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's out there remembering IPv4 addresses?
If only there were some sort of a system for translating human readable names to network addresses...
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#174This 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-…
Most of the internet is rent seeking VPNs just resell internet under a “more private than the next” unverifiable claim, and hope they get enough sycophants believing it Most of YC this year resells access to ChatGPT Its the game
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#175a) build something that automatically scales broken services to 0
b) use that AWS service that let's you pull ECR images without internet access; I forgot the name of it...
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#176So I have a tiny personal website hosted on ec2. Right now the DNS points to the server's public IPv4 address. But I don't really want to pay $40+/year for an IPv4 for my personal project. Does anyone have experience switching a small personal site to IPv6 only in 2023? I'm guessing the vast majority of my (North American/European-based) friends and visitors can probably connect just fine to an IPv6 address. I wish I…
Switch to linode.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#177Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
UDP is actually more expensive to NAT than TCP is. The reason is UDP fragmentation, which is my vote for the worst, and least forgivable, design error of TCP/IP. Instead of putting the fragmentation in L4 (like QUIC now does) and including a UDP header on every fragmented packet in a datagram, UDP only includes the header on the first packet. With fragmentation happening; firewalls, NATs, and end-hosts have to buffer…
This is probably more accurately called IP fragmentation (since that is the layer where the fragmentation happens), and a lot of companies make it optional to support in networking gear. I'm surprised that you are using it or seeing it, because it is essentially obsolete today. It has a legitimate purpose in old-timey systems which have bespoke MTUs on each link, but now the usual thing is to use 1500 bytes for WAN t…
1500 is absolutely not a pervasively usable WAN MTU, you're going to need pMTUd if you're sending 1500 byte packets broadly. Plenty of WAN links won't tolerate it. If you don't want to deal with fragmentation at all ... 500 is the minimum guaranteed MTU, but in practice it's exceptionally rare to see anything below about 1200 require fragmentation. But you can always only control what you send, not what others are sending you.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
At $45 a year per IP address you’d have to spend less than a man hour per address to even conceivably approach break even. And I normally would be worried if my company was focusing on break even initiatives instead of higher impact ones.
you don't have to break even on implementation. you will get billed every single year, so if you can have two dudes solve this in 3 months, you can break even in 3 years and every year after that you saved money
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
For sure this is a self-hoster thing, where you have pets not cattle, but so is memorizing your v4 address(es)