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

31–40 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#31

Post by ketralnis »

ribosometronome wrote: post #23
marcus0x62 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their costs for delivering one service are increasing so they should lower their prices on another?

If they're separating out functionality from that service and charging for it, sure. Customers who don't pay extra are getting less service than they used to for the same money they used to pay.

> Customers who don't pay extra are getting less service than they used to for the same money they used to pay

Sure, yeah. That's how price increases work. Nobody's arguing that it's not a price increase. But if your delivered pizza's costs are fuel+ingredients and the price of fuel goes up, well, the whole price goes up or you have to give on the amount of pizza. The price of the ingredients didn't go down, so yeah you're just going to have to pay more or get less pizza. Sorry.

You can quibble on the pizzeria's margin I guess: AWS could just eat the increased price themselves, and probably have been until now. But apparently they don't want to so they're raising the price to compensate in frankly the most reasonable way possible. AWS has insane pricing for many of its services, especially bandwidth, but this isn't one of them.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#32

Post by blibble »

londons_explore wrote: post #12

As long as IPv6 remains free, and there is some kind of ipv4 accessible proxy for web stuff for free, I'm happy.

the ipv6 support is sporadic and not in all regions

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su...

why are these large hosting companies so incompetent?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#33

Post by Operyl »

pnpnp wrote: post #28
Operyl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hobby customers aren't using AWS, by and large. And it's only a matter of time before we see more and more costs for IPv4 down in these tiers as well.

Totally disagree! :) My monthly costs are minuscule with a reserved with a t4g instance, Lambda, S3 and Cloudfront as my primary usage. Honestly, it beats out the “budget” VPS providers I was previously using, and is a heck of a lot more powerful/reliable.

I knew I’d get the counter points here on HN, but I’d argue we’re probably the exception here. AWS can be really cheap, but it is easy for things to go wrong. Bandwidth, commonly unmetered at places like OVH or Hetzner, can cost a fortune at AWS if you get attacked. And while AWS will refund you once or twice, after that you’re either left scared or on the hook eventually.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#35

Post by whalesalad »

grobbyy wrote: post #9

This is a hidden price hike. It would be more reasonable if there was a corresponding decrease in server costs.

IPv4 is a finite resource. This is a forcing function to ensure that people who actually need IPv4 addresses are using them. Gotta pay to play.

I guarantee there are a ton of unused IP's just sitting on accounts doing absolutely nothing.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#36

Post by cdchn »

whalesalad wrote: post #30
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.

$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.

There is where people usually start chiming in about how they can run a VPS at Whatever Hosting and Waffles Inc. for $4/mo.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#37

Post by whalesalad »

cdchn wrote: post #36
whalesalad wrote: post #30

Earlier 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.

There is where people usually start chiming in about how they can run a VPS at Whatever Hosting and Waffles Inc. for $4/mo.

yep, and they should. aws has never really been suited to the hobbyist. does it work for that? of course. is it most cost effective? absolutely not. is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#38

Post by toast0 »

rblatz wrote: post #25
lokar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already a lot of discussion about this at my job. It’s a lot of $ at scale. We will put a bunch of work in to avoid the fee.

At $45 a year per IP address you’d have to spend less than a man hour per address to even conceivably approach break even. And I normally would be worried if my company was focusing on break even initiatives instead of higher impact ones.

Depends how many IPs you're using. If you're using 10, who cares; if you're using 100, I dunno. If it's 1,000 or more, that's real money you probably shouldn't be pissing away. (OTOH, a lot of cloud spend is pissing away money, so what's another $45k/year)

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#39

Post by Beached »

blibble wrote: post #32
londons_explore wrote: post #12

As long as IPv6 remains free, and there is some kind of ipv4 accessible proxy for web stuff for free, I'm happy.

the ipv6 support is sporadic and not in all regions https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su... why are these large hosting companies so incompetent?

because they don't have to be. when you own 20% of the entire Internet, you can just do whatever you want, very few can compete

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#40

Post by mrweasel »

lokar wrote: post #13
netcraft wrote: post #2

I personally dont think 45$ per year is going to change habits that much, especially for larger customers who have a lot of public IPs.

Already a lot of discussion about this at my job. It’s a lot of $ at scale. We will put a bunch of work in to avoid the fee.

Some companies have been allocating a bunch of pointless IPv4 addresses and I think that's why AWS is doing this. A friend of mine have reduced the number of IPv4 addresses his employer uses by 80% (100+ IPs) in less than a week. That's a huge saving, but those IPs should never have been allocated to begin with.
Post reply on HN