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

281–290 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#281

Post by red_trumpet »

dheera wrote: post #272
red_trumpet wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I'm allowed to argue using unrelated topics and feelings, here you go ;)

> Colons are inherently more frightening than dots

I highly disagree. In traditional text usage, dots end a sentence. They are terminal. A symbol of stasis. Like death. Contrary to that, a colon always refers to something that comes after: it transcends itself, and wakes my curiosity. It is a symbol of growth and learning.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#282

Post by rvnx »

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…

It would be 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#283

Post by [deleted] »

red_trumpet wrote: post #281
dheera wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If I'm allowed to argue using unrelated topics and feelings, here you go ;) > Colons are inherently more frightening than dots I highly disagree. In traditional text usage, dots end a sentence. They are terminal. A symbol of stasis. Like death. Contrary to that, a colon always refers to something that comes after: it transcends itself, and wakes my curiosity. It is a symbol of growth and learning.

[deleted]

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#284

Post by GoblinSlayer »

candiddevmike wrote: post #99
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.

That door alarm thing that has a Windows XP workstation VM the facilities team touches once a month probably doesn't support IPv6. Repeat that scenario across multiple BUs and multiple locations and no leader wants to commit to doing that kind of due diligence. What's wrong with our current IP?

Windows XP supports IPv6.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#285

Post by EconomicsDense »

amluto wrote: post #16

> 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.

[dead]

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#286

Post by dijit »

Aperocky wrote: post #155
dijit wrote: post #114

Earlier 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.

I guess you could read it that way.

The issue tends to be that people do not actually stay on top of their spend- they claim to need less headcount but then spend more than a few salaries worth on their cloud spend.

They claim they do not need headcount but then spend the same headcount in infra people anyway, or finops people in the best case.

people have lost touch with how much compute actually costs, because its little by little and claims to scale to zero or you only pay what you want. - yet every installation I’ve ever seen has had a base cost higher than the largest colo installation cost we would have needed times 2.

Its not cost effective, because its on average 11x more expensive than a fully managed colocation installation. - your packets dont care that you spent 11x more on half the performance.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#287

Post by wiredfool »

wongarsu wrote: post #51

This finally puts real pressure on software and services to work on IPv6 only. I wouldn't be surprised if within 1-2 release cycles lots of distributions suddenly update just fine with just IPv6, package mangers can download packages over IPv6, lots of APIs gain solid and well-tested IPv6 support, etc.

For a while, google was blocking linode's ipv6 block in Frankfurt.

NBD, except that elastic hosts their client deb repos on google infra, so apt-get update was failing from it.

The solution was to single stack the server, or manually install the clients having downloaded from elsewhere.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#288

Post by hathchip »

hodgesrm wrote: post #256
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.)

> Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.) You mean like S3 object storage? That costs less outside AWS because you are usually getting less. That's if you can get it at all.

S3 is not a compute resource.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#289

Post by belter »

amluto wrote: post #16

> 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.

NAT Instances are still a thing. - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/vpc-nat-com...

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#290

Post by _cenw »

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…

Honestly, I really like that the AWS implementation is not magic. AWS is the only one of the big 3 cloud providers where I can reasonably assume I get what it says on the lid, and that it works with the pieces it advertises working with (whereas other cloud providers tend to be more nebulous in their documentation).

GCP especially takes a lot more trial and error building systems that compose a bunch of different primitives. That the API is awful doesn't help either.

Post reply on HN