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

331–340 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#331

Post by webworker »

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…

EC2 stack is overpriced for small and hobby websites. Lightsail is far more appropriately priced.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#332

Post by frognumber »

eqvinox wrote: post #275
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 ma…

> It also seems that your use of "rent seeking" doesn't match established use.

No, OP used it exactly correctly. It's the textbook definition.

> It normally refers to people extracting money for things far beyond their actual value.

No, it doesn't. The use was popularized in Wealth of Nations (yes, the original) and it refers to, as the name implies, renting out land.

I buy land. Once I've done that, I extract wealth from the economy from the economy while putting nothing new in. There's a finite amount of land.

This contrasts with investing in businesses (which allows them to buy capital, thereby generating further wealth), work, and other forms of income which generate wealth for the economy.

In broad strokes, rent-seeking behavior is unproductive, while work, investment, etc. are productive.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#333

Post by MagicMoonlight »

I still don't get why we can't just expand IPv4 into IPv5 by adding some new blocks to the front.

So instead of 192.0.0.1 it becomes 0.0.0.0.192.0.0.1

All existing addresses work, you simply append zeroes to any address which is too short for the new standard. Any old timey software still works as long as you use a router between the two systems with an old timey address.

This would give us as many addresses as we want without any changes or downsides. So why no do?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#334

Post by paulsutter »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #333

I still don't get why we can't just expand IPv4 into IPv5 by adding some new blocks to the front. So instead of 192.0.0.1 it becomes 0.0.0.0.192.0.0.1 All existing addresses work, you simply append zeroes to any address which is too short for the new standard. Any old timey software still works as long as you use a router between the two systems with an old timey address. This would give us as many addresses as we wa…

That's way too logical. Have some respect for the artisanal bike shedding that went into IPv6!

Calling it IPv5 is genius though.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#336

Post by gbraad »

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?

They expect us to be ready...

GitHub does not even have an IPv6 address.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#337

Post by pavs »

teddyh wrote: post #211
TheDudeMan wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you feel that AWS should pay for the IPs and then give them to you for free. Makes sense.

IP addresses are supposed to be free! The RIRs are in the business of handing out addresses to whoever applies for them if the applicant can show that they have a reasonable use for the addresses. But as the IPv4 addresses eventually run out, AWS will then buy addresses directly from whoever has them. This is allowed, but a bit dubious, since if someone aren’t using their addresses, it would make more sense to return…

Not true at all you have apply for asn, you have pay for registration and ips seperately. Which needs to be renewed every year. Also you cant sell to anyone you want. You can transfer ownership but it goes through arin.

Also few legal documents needed to register.

https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/#registrati...

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#338

Post by scott00 »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #91
candiddevmike wrote: post #77

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.

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.

TP-Link enterprise wireless access points (the EAP line) don't support IPv6.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#339

Post by pnutjam »

dijit wrote: post #286
Aperocky wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And all those cloud compute instances are probably strangled for io if there is any real load. Colocating your own equipment is going to give way better base performance. Compute is not just processor and memory, it's also dependent on network and disk i/o. Disk is often overlooked because modern disks are so fast, people don't even realize it's crippled in the cloud.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#340

Post by matt_kantor »

paulsutter wrote: post #334
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #333

I still don't get why we can't just expand IPv4 into IPv5 by adding some new blocks to the front. So instead of 192.0.0.1 it becomes 0.0.0.0.192.0.0.1 All existing addresses work, you simply append zeroes to any address which is too short for the new standard. Any old timey software still works as long as you use a router between the two systems with an old timey address. This would give us as many addresses as we wa…

That's way too logical. Have some respect for the artisanal bike shedding that went into IPv6! Calling it IPv5 is genius though.

IP version 5 actually was a real thing[0] (though it's usually called "Internet Stream Protocol"). It still used 32-bit addresses though.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Stream_Protocol

Post reply on HN