We changed the url from https://www.infoq.com/news/2023/08/aws-ec2-public-ipv4/, which points to this.
AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
221–230 of 377 posts
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#222Earlier 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.
It is not about the gear, it's about security people that force you to disable IPv6. "You do not have a valid technical or business reason to use it. And, as electricians say, a VISIBLE circuit break provides the best assurance that this circuit will not kill you. Lack of IPv6, as opposed to just firewalling it, is the equivalent of the visible circuit break. I would also enable a whitelist of permitted ethertypes on all switches, and not include IPv6 there."
And let me quote from CIS SUSE Linux Enterprise 15 Benchmark v1.1.1 page 191: "3.1.1 Disable IPv6 (Automated). Profile Applicability: Level 2 - Server, Level 2 - Workstation."
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#223> 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.
You don't have to use AWS' appliance (the NAT GW) to do NAT. You can NAT your traffic yourself from a t2.micro Linux.
AWS used to maintain a AMI to do just that, nowadays you have to do it yourself, but it's honestly not much more than adding 2/3 iptables rules.
I find this trade-off to be exactly the reason why AWS is so good even for small startups. You can bootstrap something quickly, though it will be a tad expensive.
And if you need to down your costs later on, you start chasing the quickwins like maintaining your own NAT gateway. The same could apply for all managed services.
Maintaining your own OpenVPN VS AWS VPN. Maintaining your own Postgres VS RDS. etc
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
AWS didn't start with "VPC", and people who still had access to the much-easier-to-conceptualize EC2 Classic only got forced off recently; Amazon VPC wasn't actually launched publicly until after Google Cloud.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#225Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
But TCP fragments in the same way?
TCP does not use IP fragmentation, and the IP packets are marked "Don't fragment". TCP performs its own fragmentation and every packet gets a TCP header in its leading section. A NAT, Firewall, or end-host can L4 route the TCP packet as-is and does not need to correlate with other packets. Edited to extend: this is why TCP has a "Maximum Segment Size", and why Path MTU Discovery information has to be passed into the…
It could not have copied the UDP header. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to put any new protocol on IP without teaching it to every router.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#227Earlier 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.
They have had a free tier since they launched over a decade ago. I think they’ve found a way to monetize that traffic or at least the data they collect on the sites they proxy because it’s survived so long.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Because for better or worse, those services are transforming the output. Arguably in not a very valuable way but they are transforming it nonetheless. Whether or not you find that transformation useful doesn’t change the fact it is happening.
IPs are IPs no matter what way you are cutting it. There is no other universal way to address internet resources yet (as adoption is still slow on ipv6), so this is rent-seeking in the same way a toll road on public roadway that has existed for 20 years is rent-seeking.
Edit: furthermore, in both of your examples you can just go to another provider or not use those services. If you are locked in to AWS, you HAVE to pay this price.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#229> 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.
You don't have to use AWS' appliance (the NAT GW) to do NAT. You can NAT your traffic yourself from a t2.micro Linux. AWS used to maintain a AMI to do just that, nowadays you have to do it yourself, but it's honestly not much more than adding 2/3 iptables rules. I find this trade-off to be exactly the reason why AWS is so good even for small startups. You can bootstrap something quickly, though it will be a tad expen…
The sweet point should be that the total cost of using the managed services should be less than doing so yourself when you account for manpower.
If we have ended up at a place where it’s cheaper to run them yourself on an EC2 box then something has gone awry.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> IP addresses are supposed to be free!
just like the air is supposed to be free!
In reality, nothing can be free. The cost was initially not being paid for, because initially there's just quite a bit of addresses, and there wouldnt have been any quarrels.
I maintain that the world is being polluted because things aren't free. Imagine if every cubic inch of air, water and land is owned. You would not be allowed to pollute! You'd pay for your use of it!