311–320 of 377 posts
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.
Every other VPS platform I've seen handed out at least /64s. You need a better VPS provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which than you're back to paying $40+/year to ensure you don't get wiped from their "free" tier when they feel like it. Nothing is free forever.
They have had a free tier since they launched over a decade ago. I think they’ve found a way to monetize that traffic or at least the data they collect on the sites they proxy because it’s survived so long.
Also gives you a lot of traffic which you can use to test new deployments without disrupting paying customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.)
Enterprise workloads need compliance. AWS and GCP provide that. They are very few hosting companies out there who are better at security and compliance than those two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UDP is actually more expensive to NAT than TCP is. The reason is UDP fragmentation, which is my vote for the worst, and least forgivable, design error of TCP/IP. Instead of putting the fragmentation in L4 (like QUIC now does) and including a UDP header on every fragmented packet in a datagram, UDP only includes the header on the first packet. With fragmentation happening; firewalls, NATs, and end-hosts have to buffer…
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…
Earlier 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.
Hmm, I use IPv4 mostly because nobody in their right mind can remember a IPv6 address…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pri…
Let's say the requirement is to build a platform like Twitter with 100mln daily active users. Wouldn't cloud like Hetzner with AWS/GCP/Azure failover, survive this?
I worked with AWS as a developer for a long time, but in pretty much ever case 10 was more than enough.
Would be very grateful if someone could share some insight into it!
I never understood why AWS has so much appeal when it comes to cloud infrastructure. Why not cheaper clouds? Is it about scalability, reliability, speed, modernity of equipment, customer support, UI, speed of networks? Let's say the requirement is to build a platform like Twitter with 100mln daily active users. Wouldn't cloud like Hetzner with AWS/GCP/Azure failover, survive this? I worked with AWS as a developer for…
I never understood why AWS has so much appeal when it comes to cloud infrastructure. Why not cheaper clouds? Is it about scalability, reliability, speed, modernity of equipment, customer support, UI, speed of networks? Let's say the requirement is to build a platform like Twitter with 100mln daily active users. Wouldn't cloud like Hetzner with AWS/GCP/Azure failover, survive this? I worked with AWS as a developer for…
What do you suggest? Something like a VPS service, DO?
[1] example list of clouds https://www.vpsbenchmarks.com/plans