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

41–50 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#41

Post by ransackdev »

pnpnp wrote: post #22
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.

I completely agree. It’s odd they would announce charging for dedicated IPv4 while not having a free shared egress solution (unless I’m misunderstanding). I would expect them to reduce NAT pricing in the long run, but who knows.

I think that as a business and given the fact they are now charging for a previously free service (public IPs), offering a now paid service as free would nullify the reasons for doing what they are doing. They don't owe anyone anything for free.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#42

Post by Beached »

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.

you don't have to break even on implementation. you will get billed every single year, so if you can have two dudes solve this in 3 months, you can break even in 3 years and every year after that you saved money

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#43

Post by cj »

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.

Plus $0.045 per gigabyte of data that passes through it.

AWS has notoriously high egress fees.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#44

Post by mark242 »

whalesalad wrote: post #35
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.

Addresses were already being charged if they weren't attached to an interface. Increase that charge if you're looking to churn unused IP addresses.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#45

Post by wongarsu »

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.

But if you have 100 backend servers that mostly communicate on the internal network/VPC and need their IPv4 mostly for updates, it seems easy to justify standing up a proxy and reconfiguring your template. At least if your engineers aren't in Silicon Valley and thus don't cost you $400/h.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#46

Post by inopinatus »

ransackdev wrote: post #41
pnpnp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. It’s odd they would announce charging for dedicated IPv4 while not having a free shared egress solution (unless I’m misunderstanding). I would expect them to reduce NAT pricing in the long run, but who knows.

I think that as a business and given the fact they are now charging for a previously free service (public IPs), offering a now paid service as free would nullify the reasons for doing what they are doing. They don't owe anyone anything for free.

That doesn't follow, because the reason is that IP addresses are scarce.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#47

Post by anderspitman »

Hot take. IPv6 adoption is never going to hit 100% because SNI routing covers most of the cases people actually need. If UDP functionality is necessary QUIC will be used. I wish this wasn't the case. It would be nice if the software was good enough that more people were enabled to self host.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#49

Post by jeremyjh »

mark242 wrote: post #44
whalesalad wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Addresses were already being charged if they weren't attached to an interface. Increase that charge if you're looking to churn unused IP addresses.

That would not catch every public IP address that is actually unused, because it can be attached to an interface and yet not be needed or actually used by any client. But I don't agree with GP that this is an important reason for the price increase. They are increasing prices simply because costs have increased.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#50

Post by Spivak »

whalesalad wrote: post #37
cdchn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes it is which is why Lightsail exists. The whole mantra of the cloud is only pay for what you need and scale down to zero.
Post reply on HN