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

271–280 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#271

Post by LeafItAlone »

capableweb wrote: post #107
decasia wrote: post #103

So I have a tiny personal website hosted on ec2. Right now the DNS points to the server's public IPv4 address. But I don't really want to pay $40+/year for an IPv4 for my personal project. Does anyone have experience switching a small personal site to IPv6 only in 2023? I'm guessing the vast majority of my (North American/European-based) friends and visitors can probably connect just fine to an IPv6 address. I wish I…

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…

I think there’s a difference between “don’t” and “can’t”.

It’s not clear to me on that page how it describes “can’t”, other than ambiguous (to me) graph labels.

Is there more info elsewhere that describes the “can’t”?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#272

Post by dheera »

red_trumpet wrote: post #269
dheera wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP addresses should never have had letters and double colons in them. What's Google's IPv4 DNS? 8.8.8.8. What SHOULD Google's IPv6 DNS be? 8.8.8.8.8.8. What SHOULD Google's IPv8 DNS be? 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8. What IS Google's IPv6 DNS? 2001::some::shit::I::::can't::remember//::h0ff::affblah This is why I'm still stuck on IPv4. I'm a walking DNS server for all the instances I own, I can hammer out IPs when DNS fails me and…

If it is the use of colons instead of dots that prevents you from learning the adresses, then I'm not sure you can be helped. But that discussion aside, if you adopt the IPv4 naming scheme to the 128-bit IPv6 adresses, Google's DNS would be 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8. I would never be confident that I put in the right number of 8's in that case. And I have a feeling that you being overwhelmed has more to do with…

> If it is the use of colons instead of dots

Colons are inherently more frightening than dots, especially double colons, which seems like some badly written C++ class escaped from gaol. Dots feel friendly and cute, I would pet an IPv4 address.

> then I'm not sure you can be helped

Sure, and the rest of the planet hasn't adopted IPv6 either. It's a horrible UX.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#273

Post by red_trumpet »

decasia wrote: post #103

So I have a tiny personal website hosted on ec2. Right now the DNS points to the server's public IPv4 address. But I don't really want to pay $40+/year for an IPv4 for my personal project. Does anyone have experience switching a small personal site to IPv6 only in 2023? I'm guessing the vast majority of my (North American/European-based) friends and visitors can probably connect just fine to an IPv6 address. I wish I…

That's a high price tag! On my Hetzner instance I pay 0.5€ per month and IPv4 adress, so 6€ per year.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#274

Post by GoblinSlayer »

pantalaimon wrote: post #119
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even already, I think you can get away with doing almost everything v6 with a much smaller number of ipv4s for legacy traffic. I say that but still largely use v4 for everything, so maybe I'm not one to talk.

Unless you need to pull anything from GitHub…

That's the idea, you route github through a legacy route and use normal route for everything else.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#275

Post by eqvinox »

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-…

> spent $ billions buying up ASN blocks.

You can't buy/sell/trade "ASN blocks". The only people handling "ASN blocks" are the 5 RIRs (APNIC, RIPE NCC, ARIN, AfriNIC and LACNIC) and IANA.

> owning IPs is the ultimate rent seeking cloud business

It also seems that your use of "rent seeking" doesn't match established use. It normally refers to people extracting money for things far beyond their actual value. The IPv4 market is working pretty well on a supply vs. demand price feedback loop, i.e. the prices are in fact just reflecting the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. The term "rent seeking" does not fit that situation.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#276

Post by jiggawatts »

aoetalks wrote: post #247
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…

> 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.

> prefers it over IPv4

That's the problem. If the OS starts using IPv6 preferentially but the software on top can't handle it, then you get a crash.

E.g.: if you turn on IPv6 for DNS and it starts returning AAAA records instead of A records, then a lot of applications fall flat on their face.

Usually the type written in C and insisting on maintaining compatibility with whatever Berkley did in the 1970s.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#277

Post by MayeulC »

metadat wrote: post #7
wmf wrote: post #4

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424

Thanks! Macro-expanded: AWS: IPv4 addresses cost too much, so you’re going to pay https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424 (3 days ago, 186 comments) AWS Begins Charging for Public IPv4 Addresses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 (6 days ago, 36 comments) AWS Public IPv4 Address Charge and Public IP Insights https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910855 (6 days ago, 9 comments)

You make it sounds like that expansion was performed automatically. Is that something HN's reply box supports?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#278

Post by bauruine »

jiggawatts wrote: post #276
aoetalks wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> prefers it over IPv4 That's the problem. If the OS starts using IPv6 preferentially but the software on top can't handle it, then you get a crash. E.g.: if you turn on IPv6 for DNS and it starts returning AAAA records instead of A records, then a lot of applications fall flat on their face. Usually the type written in C and insisting on maintaining compatibility with whatever Berkley did in the 1970s.

Some enterprise software I guess? I have native IPv6 since 2010 and can't remember a single software that crashed because of it.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#279

Post by MayeulC »

pravus wrote: post #219
mr_toad wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

I wrote this a few years ago, but I feel like putting a dedicated IPv4 like 66.66.66.66 in the A record would inform the web browser or other software that the website is only reachable via IPv6, and a more informative error message could be displayed.

This would require a proper RFC of course, with support from IANA and web browsers.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#280

Post by MayeulC »

mgbmtl wrote: post #159
cferry wrote: post #79

The only barrier for me to go IPv6-only is those VPS that are provided with a single /128 IPv6, and I do not know of a service that would offer IPv6 tunneling other than HE, that requires an IPv4 endpoint. The day I get a full /48 or /64 with my VPSes, I'm ready to drop IPv4.

Does your VPS assign you multiple ipv4 addresses? Otherwise seems like feature parity. I use ipv6 everywhere, but I get annoyed when some features are missing. For example, OVH won't let me transfer an IPv6 prefix like they do for IPv4. I thought I could just migrate my VMs to another box, but one of them had lots of clients with their own DNS/domains, so it was a huge pain to update.

OVH gives me a single /128. Spam whitelists are at /64 grsnularity, so I cannot use IPv6 e-mail. this is not parity!

I asked their support about this a year ago. They said they were discussing increasing the prefix size internally.

That kind of makes me want to move to Hertzner or another competitor.

Post reply on HN