Digital landlord. Anybody want to rent a domain?
AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
241–250 of 377 posts
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#242Always more expensive on AWS: $0.005/hr =~ $3.60/mo
We pay $0.55/mo (€0.50) on Hetzner.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#243Earlier 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's been a while since I've thought about this; thanks for the refresher.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
That does not answer my question though... I am not spending $600,000 on hardware!
I have no doubt that there are plenty of cases when local hardware is cheaper, but gp said "There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective."... and I claim there are many use cases where AWS is cheaper.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
$40/mo is outrageous? We spend thousands a month on AWS and drive most traffic thru a single NAT gateway. It's rock solid and it "just works" without any fuss. Totally worth it.
For a lot of traffic $40 is not outrageous. For a little traffic $40 is outrageous.
For a lot of traffic, the $40 is nothing compared to the per GB price.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#246> 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.
How much does the NAT gateway cost? Quick search didn't turn up anything (and I don't care about this enough to spend more than a few seconds on it). You can turn a regular EC2 instance running Linux into a NAT box by giving it two network interfaces (hell, you can even do it with a single interface) and a few shell commands; I wonder if that's cheaper, even including the price of the public IPv4.
Edit: I see from another post that NAT gateway costs $0.045/hr + $0.045/GB of transfer. That seems... not terrible? An a1.large on EC2 is $0.051/hr + $0.09/GB transfer to the internet (which I assume this type of box would be doing a lot of).
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#247Earlier 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…
> new software and hardware is being developed or rolled out right now that is incapable of working on an IPv6 network
I would be shocked if this were true for hardware. Even for software, every major OS in the last 10 years as supported IPv6, and prefers it over IPv4
I’m sure there’s horror stories, but I doubt it’s systemic.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.
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…
Is that $0.045/GB for all data transferred through it, or just egress to the public internet? If it's the latter, that's half the price of normal EC2 instance egress to the public internet.
If it's the former... oh sweet jesus, what? Probably way cheaper to just run an a1.large or something with Linux on it, plus a very short shell script to set up NAT. That's assuming well more than half of the traffic going through it is ingress from the internet. If it's 50/50 ingress and egress, then it's basically the same pricing as NAT gateway.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#249> 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.
Just run an Aviatrix gateway instead, same functionality, lower price
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
They became a multi-billion dollar business by: A) Promising scale (and delivering to a certain extent) B) being significantly more convenient than contemporary solutions C) becoming trendy D) hoodwinking CxO’s into the belief that not owning your data is better for you, actually. (CapEx vs OpEx) E) unfathomable amounts of DevRel. Nobody has ever claimed AWS was cost effective, they have said that “it’s worth the cos…
> cost effective > it’s worth the cost Sounds about the same.
No, the second line is when somebody else is paying the bill.
AWS is a boutique retail reseller for compute. It's okay for very tiny projects, or for vanity purposes.