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

181–190 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#181

Post by bandrami »

kccqzy wrote: post #84
ketralnis wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For iOS maybe. Most of those applications are also using Apple's networking libraries and are effectively required to be on Apple's infinite software update treadmill to continue to be listed, keeping them young and hip in perpetuity. This is the upside to that treadmill, things are up to date or just stop working. But I don't think that's representative. "Or just stop working" isn't a valid alternative to the rest o…

A hospital's MRI machine doesn't need an internet connection. IPv4 only intranets are fine and we are never going to get rid of them. But anything that connects to the internet needs to be updated regularly, if only for security and vulnerability reasons. If you have a 10-year-old functional and supported desktop, it most likely supports being IPv6 only just fine. The typical 10-year-old desktop came from the factory…

> A hospital's MRI machine doesn't need an internet connection

That's one of the more disheartening searches on censys, unfortunately

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#182

Post by tedunangst »

colmmacc wrote: post #143
tptacek wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

But TCP fragments in the same way?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#183

Post by yieldcrv »

wpietri wrote: post #174
yieldcrv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's not rent seeking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

I see, I understand the distinction then, so why would would owning and reselling IP addresses be rent seeking then, if my examples also are not

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#184

Post by hughw »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #83
whalesalad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep, and they should. aws has never really been suited to the hobbyist. does it work for that? of course. is it most cost effective? absolutely not. is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes.

> is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes. There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective. Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.)

You must be talking about renting resources that run 100% of the time. AWS rents us gpu instances by the second. We have to run sporadic jobs throughout the day that take 50 seconds to two hours. Depending on customer activity we might need to run 10 or more at once, or we might lie idle for an hour. The elastic economics are unbeatable.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#185

Post by profmonocle »

brickteacup wrote: post #139
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)

This is one thing Google Cloud does well - traffic to Google services bypasses NAT gateway, even over IPv4.

I was curious how they do this, so I set up a service on Google Cloud Run that just echo'd the user's public IP address. When curl'd over IPv4, it said I was coming from a unique local (i.e. private) IPv6 address. The private IPv4 address of my server was embedded in the address, along with some other random-looking bits that probably identified my VPC somehow. So they must have been doing some sort of stateless IPv4 to IPv6 translation behind the scenes.

It was a clever solution that takes advantage of the fact that all of Google's API endpoints are dual-stack, even though (at the time) they didn't support IPv6 on customer VMs. The problem AWS currently has is not all of their internal endpoints are dual-stack, so even using IPv6 can't save you from cloud NAT costs when accessing AWS services.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#186

Post by wuming2 »

decasia wrote: post #103

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…

For a small personal website I suggest to look at alwaysdata.com. In France so ipv6 support is a given.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#187

Post by ThatPlayer »

decasia wrote: post #103

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…

Cloudflare's gateway supports IPv6 and will serve over IPv4 if you want to use that.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#188

Post by cebert »

CSSer wrote: post #56
cj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus $0.045 per gigabyte of data that passes through it. AWS has notoriously high egress fees.

I ran into a SaaS company recently that had a guide for how to setup a white-label domain using route 53 and Cloudfront for one of their services. The SaaS company charges for service bandwidth usage, and they host their infrastructure on AWS, so if you opt to follow their guide they get a fat margin bump in the form of avoiding an egress charge and you get to be double-charged for bandwidth. You've gotta love it.

How are the avoiding egress costs? I am not completely following.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#189

Post by profmonocle »

zgluck wrote: post #175

For ECS users who depend on public IPs to avoid insane NAT GW fees when doing CI/CD.. I guess we have two options: a) 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...

c) nudge all the services your CI system interacts with to enable IPv6 to save their AWS users money. ;-)
Post reply on HN