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

211–220 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#211

Post by teddyh »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #210
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.

IP addresses are supposed to be free! The RIRs are in the business of handing out addresses to whoever applies for them if the applicant can show that they have a reasonable use for the addresses. But as the IPv4 addresses eventually run out, AWS will then buy addresses directly from whoever has them. This is allowed, but a bit dubious, since if someone aren’t using their addresses, it would make more sense to return them to the RIR to be reassigned. But if AWS owns all the addresses, and nobody can get any more, it makes sense for AWS to start charging for the addresses. It would also make sense for AWS to halt and delay any IPv6 adoption, so we should watch for that.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#212

Post by squeaky-clean »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #91
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.

Serious question, is there any enterprise gear made today which does not support IPv6? I have assumed that the natural hardware upgrade cycles made it so 99% of all active equipment could support the technology, even if it was not configured to do so.

"Made today"? Probably not. "Still in operation today"? Definitely.

My company makes what is essentially an enterprise IoT device. I'd guesstimate 10% of networks with our hardware in them have no ipv6 support at all. And these are businesses that are on the more tech savvy side (I would assume, since they're ordering our stuff).

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#213

Post by rescbr »

profmonocle wrote: post #185
brickteacup wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-lo…

The problem AWS has is the design of VPC internals.

As the first hyperscaler, they gotta pay the legacy tax.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#214

Post by yuppie_scum »

mgaunard wrote: post #65

Anything in the cloud is 10 times the price it's worth. It's essentially a tax on the people gullible enough to believe in cloud tech or unable to set up real hardware.

Well next time you get that big customer that scales your traffic by 500%, enjoy sitting around waiting for Dell to ship you a bunch of servers or whatever while we just change an integer in a repo and hit terraform apply.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#215

Post by jon_richards »

ttt3ts wrote: post #137
amluto wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Weird, I was just looking into this yesterday and found https://fck-nat.dev/

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#216

Post by vbezhenar »

yieldcrv wrote: post #122
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-…

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

I doubt many people care about private aspect of the VPN. They usually want to access services which are inaccessible from their primary IP.

I'd say that VPN is a way for Internet to work around artificial obstacles.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#217

Post by strbean »

mr_toad wrote: post #195
capableweb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Google ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ), 60% of word-wide users wouldn't be able to visit your website. In the US, it would be about ~50% of users, while in Europe it's ranging from 30% (France) to 98% (Spain) who wouldn't be able to visit the website. But yeah, I'd do what you say in the bottom of your comment. Add AAAA records and then see how many people uses ipv6 compared to ip…

So if a domain only has a AAAA record, and for whatever reason a user can’t use IPv6, what sort of error message would the user see?

Found https://test-ipv6.com and:

https://ipv6.ams2.test-ipv6.com/ip/?callback=?&testdomain=te...

I get the following from Chrome:

> This site can’t be reached

> Check if there is a typo in ipv6.ams2.test-ipv6.com.

>DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#218

Post by abdullahkhalids »

decasia wrote: post #110
capableweb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Google ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ), 60% of word-wide users wouldn't be able to visit your website. In the US, it would be about ~50% of users, while in Europe it's ranging from 30% (France) to 98% (Spain) who wouldn't be able to visit the website. But yeah, I'd do what you say in the bottom of your comment. Add AAAA records and then see how many people uses ipv6 compared to ip…

Sigh, so basically it's impossible to switch without shredding an already tiny audience. I'm sure it won't be a nice UX either to have a "can't connect to this IP" error in someone's browser. IPv6 has been around for so long now, I'm disappointed it doesn't have a little bit higher adoption.

Might be a good idea to make a hidden request from your homepage to an ipv6 only resource. Then log how many of your visitors actually fail.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#219

Post by pravus »

mr_toad wrote: post #195
capableweb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Google ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ), 60% of word-wide users wouldn't be able to visit your website. In the US, it would be about ~50% of users, while in Europe it's ranging from 30% (France) to 98% (Spain) who wouldn't be able to visit the website. But yeah, I'd do what you say in the bottom of your comment. Add AAAA records and then see how many people uses ipv6 compared to ip…

So if a domain only has a AAAA record, and for whatever reason a user can’t use IPv6, what sort of error message would the user see?

The client shouldn't even attempt to get an AAAA record unless they have an IPv6 stack available. In that case, their client should try to look up an A record and get an NXDOMAIN error which the browser usually shows as "IP address could not be found". If the client does attempt IPv6, you'll get a stack error when trying to connect to the remote host because the kernel will reject the address family and you'll get something like "network is unreachable". Some clients will also degrade from AAAA to A on error so you'll get the NXDOMAIN error as above.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#220

Post by tenebrisalietum »

Aeolun wrote: post #131
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.

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

Use DNS?
Post reply on HN