AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses • Hacker News Board

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#351

Post by hnarn » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

As someone who recently wanted to try out IPv6 to learn more about it, I can say that I welcome anything that might help improve the sorry state of IPv6 adoption. This is a hostile and destructive move, I mean obviously, it's Amazon after all, but one can at least hope that as IPv4 increasingly becomes a cost, it could drive interest to the alternative that has been left out in the cold for like two decades.

Most end-users don't care what they're using as long as they can access the Internet, and since our other option to IPv6 adoption is living in a CGNAT hellscape that destroys the whole peer-to-peer idea of the Internet, then for the love of all that is holy start moving. Personally I think nation states need to take a bigger responsibility here and create incentives to move the market, because it's one of those things where the negative effects aren't obvious until they're overwhelming.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#352

Post by hnarn » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:26 PM UTC

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…

This comment is just HN at its best. Chef's kiss. The Internet Engineering Task Force, a group of experts in the field, spent years and countless hours creating a new standard, but do not let that stop us from napkin-sketching up a new solution ourselves, I mean how smart can these experts really be?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#353

Post by ndriscoll » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

pnutjam wrote: post #339

dijit wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really is crippled to an absurd degree. A basic RDS install with a gp3 volume will get 3k IOPS and 0.125 GB/s transfer if your volume is under 400 GB, or 12k IOPS and 0.5 GB/s transfer if it's larger. The monthly per-GB storage cost for RDS is the same as the capital costs to buy the disks in a mirrored setup. Meanwhile, if you bought the disks, you'd get over 100x the IOPS and 10x the transfer.

For a provisioned IOPS volume, you can get up to 256k IOPS (so still a fraction of a single drive) at a cost of $25600/month (plus per-GB storage costs). For that price, you could buy 8x of these: https://www.newegg.com/micron-30-72-tb-9400/p/N82E1682036315... giving you 240 TB of raw SSD storage.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#354

Post by metadat » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #350

MayeulC wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Macro expansion as in dang made it bigger by hand. Maybe he has a script.

Dang has mentioned before that he doesn't use any scripts for his HN posts. He likely refrains because it would go against the intended spirit of HN - interesting discussion and genuine interaction.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#355

Post by bombcar » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

metadat wrote: post #354

bombcar wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Macro expansion as in dang made it bigger by hand. Maybe he has a script.

Dang has mentioned before that he doesn't use any scripts for his HN posts. He likely refrains because it would go against the intended spirit of HN - interesting discussion and genuine interaction.

There's scripts that are advanced and do moderation, say, but you could have an easy keyboard macro that would take a URL and replace it with URL, title, and number of comments.

The second would be a timesaver.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#356

Post by backendanon » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #134

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-…

Looking at it a different way, IPv4 addresses are scarce so it makes more economic sense to have fewer, central owners that can maximize usage, rather than millions of individuals owners, many or most of which would not necessarily be using them at any given time. Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource. But if you don’t want to “rent” IP addresses from…

"Putting a price on IP address usage again is a mechanism to prevent squatting/hoarding a scarce resource."

That isn't one company's call, it's past time for the DOJ to step in.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#357

Post by metadat » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 5:58 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #355

metadat wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dang has mentioned before that he doesn't use any scripts for his HN posts. He likely refrains because it would go against the intended spirit of HN - interesting discussion and genuine interaction.

There's scripts that are advanced and do moderation, say, but you could have an easy keyboard macro that would take a URL and replace it with URL, title, and number of comments. The second would be a timesaver.

Hey Bombcar - just noticed it's you :)

Yes, technically correct, though the harder / more annoying part tends to be sifting through Algolia, HN itself, or Google for the relevant gems.

I'm also usually on my phone these days, haven't logged into HN from a desktop in ages.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#358

Post by tptacek » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 6:54 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #243

colmmacc wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TCP does not use IP fragmentation, and the IP packets are marked "Don't fragment". TCP performs its own fragmentation and every packet gets a TCP header in its leading section. A NAT, Firewall, or end-host can L4 route the TCP packet as-is and does not need to correlate with other packets. Edited to extend: this is why TCP has a "Maximum Segment Size", and why Path MTU Discovery information has to be passed into the…

It's been a while since I've thought about this; thanks for the refresher.

MSS was also super annoying for me doing re-encapsulation of TCP packets! We wanted to do eBPF cut-through routing of TCP connections for WebRTC stuff, where proxy bounces would be problematic because connections need to live a long time. If you're shuttling packets around, you're going to eat into the MTU with your own headers. 99.9% of our TCP connections weren't cut through so we don't want to dial in new settings into VMs for that feature, so we did it in eBPF, and parsing/adjusting TCP headers in BPF C (pre-bounded loops!) wasn't fun.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#359

Post by dilyevsky » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 8:03 PM UTC

tecleandor wrote: post #327

dilyevsky wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just egress in case of NAT - they charge you 4.5c per processed GB which means in both directions. This trips a lot of people up.

Wait what... Ingress too? :o

Yes "ingress" too (quotes bc in this case it needs to be initiated from the vpc)

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#360

Post by amluto » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 10:35 PM UTC

brickteacup wrote: post #139

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.

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)

I wonder if someone at AWS noticed that the interface endpoint pricing was offensive for accessing S3 and therefore created the free “VPC Endpoint for Amazon S3.”

I would find it rather surprising if the actual cost to Amazon of connecting a VPC to S3 were substantially lower than the cost of connecting a VPC to any other AWS service.