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

231–240 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#231

Post by champtar »

patrakov wrote: post #222
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having an Allowlist of ethertype (ARP/IPv4/IPv6) is an extremely good idea IMO, as Windows and Linux are extremely permissive in what they accept on L2: https://blog.champtar.fr/VLAN0_LLC_SNAP/

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#232

Post by bx376 »

theamk wrote: post #194
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

so I have an HTTP endpoint which gets maybe 10 hits per day, and does some lightweight computations and records small amount of data. Right now, this is done on AWS, with lambda + S3, and costs under $0.02/month. Can you point me to something more cost effective that that? Don't forget I also need backup for data, automatic failover in case of machine failure or crash, amd no maintenance (like OS upgrades) for 5+ yea…

Stateless applications are far cheaper than stateful applications to host on AWS. Computing is cheap, object storage is where AWS make unreasonable profit and lock you in their platform.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#233

Post by bx376 »

theamk wrote: post #194
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

so I have an HTTP endpoint which gets maybe 10 hits per day, and does some lightweight computations and records small amount of data. Right now, this is done on AWS, with lambda + S3, and costs under $0.02/month. Can you point me to something more cost effective that that? Don't forget I also need backup for data, automatic failover in case of machine failure or crash, amd no maintenance (like OS upgrades) for 5+ yea…

See https://world.hey.com/dhh/we-stand-to-save-7m-over-five-year...

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#234

Post by mike_d »

efitz wrote: post #134
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-…

Looking at it a different way, IPv4 addresses are scarce so it makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage, rather than millions of individuals owners, many or most of which would not necessarily be using them at any given time. Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource. But if you don’t want to “rent” IP addresses from…

> makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage

What you have described is effectively a China-style ICP license[1]. Unless you are willing to give a big name cloud provider $x per month, you shouldn't be able to put a service on the internet?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#235

Post by mike_d »

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.

Had AWS not gone around offering to beat any offered price for IPs things might be a lot more reasonable right now. You can't complain that you had to pay a ton for a scare resource when you were the ones throwing gasoline on the scarcity problem.

They even did backroom deals to steal large blocks of IP space, most notably from the HAM radio community.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#236

Post by Sebguer »

chii wrote: post #230
teddyh wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

You've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress too many times, and taken away the wrong lessons.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#237

Post by icedchai »

zgluck wrote: post #196
profmonocle wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would AWS charge less for IPv6 traffic through their stupid gateway than for IPv4 traffic? It's just an artificial money making machine anyway.

Less overhead. You don’t need extra CPU and memory for NAT w/IPv6, because there is no NAT.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#238

Post by pclmulqdq »

tptacek wrote: post #207
pclmulqdq wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, you have to account for the headers in the 1500 byte MTU, which I suppose can be substantial if you have several VLAN tags, IPSec, IPv6, and a bunch of IP options. Presumably most of that encapsulation happens inside a datacenter, though, where you can use jumbo frames.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#239

Post by ripdog »

mike_d wrote: post #234
efitz wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at it a different way, IPv4 addresses are scarce so it makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage, rather than millions of individuals owners, many or most of which would not necessarily be using them at any given time. Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource. But if you don’t want to “rent” IP addresses from…

> makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage What you have described is effectively a China-style ICP license[1]. Unless you are willing to give a big name cloud provider $x per month, you shouldn't be able to put a service on the internet? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICP_license

Only on legacy IP. We're trying to kill it.

A bit of pain will be necessary to finally get modern IP across the line of mainstream usage.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#240

Post by ripdog »

duped wrote: post #162
pantalaimon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you need to pull anything from GitHub…

Why do you need a public IPv4 address to pull from GitHub?

GitHub has no modern IP support, so a system without a legacy IP is unable to pull anything from GitHub.
Post reply on HN