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

201–210 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#201

Post by ttt3ts »

endgame wrote: post #200
ttt3ts wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. And AWS do (sorta) offer a NAT AMI (amazon machine image) if you want to do more management yourself and not get extorted for bandwidth. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Ins... I say sorta because it's built on an old version of Amazon Linux and is headed towards EOL with no replacement except "go build your own" as you suggest. https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/an-alternat-future-we-now…

Thanks! That is exactly what I wanted to know.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#202

Post by endgame »

jiggawatts wrote: post #128
candiddevmike wrote: post #77

Earlier 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.

It’s worse than that: new software and hardware is being developed or rolled out right now that is incapable of working on an IPv6 network. Not just unable to use it, but actively incompatible — failing to run if other devices use IPv6! This was an issue with Azure’s PostgreSQL service, which would fail if you deployed other unrelated IPv6 services in the same virtual network. We need a guild of software engineering…

> We need a guild of software engineering

The threat of professional exclusion is one of the big levers provided by such a guild. Given the way tech companies behave, why do you believe that this lever will be left in the hands of good people, and not taken over (like the rest of the internet)?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#203

Post by endgame »

ttt3ts wrote: post #201
endgame wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And AWS do (sorta) offer a NAT AMI (amazon machine image) if you want to do more management yourself and not get extorted for bandwidth. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Ins... I say sorta because it's built on an old version of Amazon Linux and is headed towards EOL with no replacement except "go build your own" as you suggest. https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/an-alternat-future-we-now…

Thanks! That is exactly what I wanted to know.

Another thing: EC2 instances (VMs) have a "Source/Destination IP check" which makes them ignore any packets not intended for them. If you want an instance to do NAT, you need to turn this off.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#204

Post by asynchronous »

doublerabbit wrote: post #142
smileybarry wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if all else fails, you can put something like Cloudflare in front of it to handle IPv4 traffic.

Which than you're back to paying $40+/year to ensure you don't get wiped from their "free" tier when they feel like it. Nothing is free forever.

True, it is a temporary solution though to how long Cloudflare offers it.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#205

Post by zeroimpl »

ishanjain28 wrote: post #71
SteveNuts wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm shocked this isn't a feature of a VPC out of the box (shared internet bound traffic). You should only need a NAT gateway if you want the traffic to come out of a single set of external IPs that you control. Almost all of my use cases I could easily ride out to the internet through a shared pipe (apt updates and such) and don't care whatsoever what IP that exits the AWS network from, since I'm not applying firewal…

So for this, Run your apps in public subnets that are attached to IGW.

Which then requires each app to have a public IP, priced at $44/year starting soon

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#206

Post by candiddevmike »

endgame wrote: post #202
jiggawatts wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worse than that: new software and hardware is being developed or rolled out right now that is incapable of working on an IPv6 network. Not just unable to use it, but actively incompatible — failing to run if other devices use IPv6! This was an issue with Azure’s PostgreSQL service, which would fail if you deployed other unrelated IPv6 services in the same virtual network. We need a guild of software engineering…

> We need a guild of software engineering The threat of professional exclusion is one of the big levers provided by such a guild. Given the way tech companies behave, why do you believe that this lever will be left in the hands of good people, and not taken over (like the rest of the internet)?

I think there are more developers opposed to the recent web attestation shenanigans than those for it (even those who might be coerced into being for it by their employer). A majority guild vote could stop everyone working on it and keep the web open.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#207

Post by tptacek »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #165
colmmacc wrote: post #143

Earlier 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…

One thing I've learned since joining Fly.io in 2020 is to laugh when people point to the 1500 MTU. You absolutely can't count on that: IPv6 cuts into it, and so does every additional layer of encapsulation on your path.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#208

Post by dundarious »

tmpX7dMeXU wrote: post #168
doublerabbit wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? Both are dominating the internet-cyberspace and both are screwing it over for everyone else.

[flagged]

There's a collective action problem around IPv4 vs IPv6. Talking about Azure/Microsoft/GitHub and its lack of IPv6 support is very much an interrelated problem. It's ridiculous to think of noting downsides/trade offs as just kvetching.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#209

Post by dwilkie »

endgame wrote: post #200
ttt3ts wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. And AWS do (sorta) offer a NAT AMI (amazon machine image) if you want to do more management yourself and not get extorted for bandwidth. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Ins... I say sorta because it's built on an old version of Amazon Linux and is headed towards EOL with no replacement except "go build your own" as you suggest. https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/an-alternat-future-we-now…

You don’t actually need to use the AMI. Here’s an example of a NAT instance we build from scratch:

https://github.com/somleng/somleng-project/blob/main/infrast...

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#210

Post by TheDudeMan »

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-…

I guess you feel that AWS should pay for the IPs and then give them to you for free. Makes sense.
Post reply on HN