Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

border0.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#41

Post by cqqxo4zV46cp »

gtvwill wrote: post #17
bastardoperator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv5 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx for the win! /s

Tbh not sure why the protocol couldn't be upgraded so that xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx and xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx are all accepted. Seems a monumentally shite oversight to not be like that. I mean it's a freaking telephone book address system. Astounding they baked it in just xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and didn't upgrade the protocol at all in the last 20 years (is this just entirely due to profit/asset protecting?). Resp…

Because I don’t want to feel like I’m shopping at IKEA when I’m configuring my router.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#42

Post by vel0city »

jedberg wrote: post #31
alphager wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how routers or routes work.

I'm aware of how routers work and this is obviously simplified. But basically you would just have a high part of the address that would be outside the mask, and old routers would just ignore it. So your IPv6 would be 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8, and old routers would just see 5.6.7.8 and route to the place where that IP should go. The router at 5.6.7.8 would be responsible for understanding IPv6 and how to route from there with…

> So your IPv6 would be 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8, and old routers would just see 5.6.7.8 and route to the place where that IP should go.

Thats absolutely not what would happen to an IPv4 only router though. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what IPv4 actually is.

That IPv4 router getting a packet with a source address of 9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16 addressed to 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8 wouldn't know to route it to 5.6.7.8. That packet would be parsed as a source of 9.10.11.12 and a destination of 13.14.15.16. The real destination would have been spilled over into the Options header or payload of the packet. This is because in IPv4, bits 128-159 are the source address, 160-191 are the destination. Having a 64-bit address mushed into an IPv4 packet would just lead to those bits spilling over to the next location.

An IPv4-only router would not be able to route your theoretical IPv6 packet.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#43

Post by jedberg »

vel0city wrote: post #42
jedberg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of how routers work and this is obviously simplified. But basically you would just have a high part of the address that would be outside the mask, and old routers would just ignore it. So your IPv6 would be 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8, and old routers would just see 5.6.7.8 and route to the place where that IP should go. The router at 5.6.7.8 would be responsible for understanding IPv6 and how to route from there with…

> So your IPv6 would be 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8, and old routers would just see 5.6.7.8 and route to the place where that IP should go. Thats absolutely not what would happen to an IPv4 only router though. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what IPv4 actually is. That IPv4 router getting a packet with a source address of 9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16 addressed to 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8 wouldn't know to route it to 5.6.7.8. That packet…

I assume the high bits would be in the variable length ip option field. So to an old stack it would look like a packet from 13.14.15.16 to 5.6.7.8. Both of those devices would have to be capable of routing ipv6 packets, but nothing in between would.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#44

Post by jedberg »

kelnos wrote: post #35
jedberg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of how routers work and this is obviously simplified. But basically you would just have a high part of the address that would be outside the mask, and old routers would just ignore it. So your IPv6 would be 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8, and old routers would just see 5.6.7.8 and route to the place where that IP should go. The router at 5.6.7.8 would be responsible for understanding IPv6 and how to route from there with…

That wouldn't work either. Why would the 5.6.7.8 router necessarily know how to route to the longer-address destination? There's no guarantee it's been upgraded. And why should it have to, anyway? It could get DoSed (accidentally, even) by traffic intended for a completely different destination outside its control. Also consider that even if that 5.6.7.8 router knew how to route to the 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8 network, it wou…

The device with IP 5.6.7.8 would have to be capable of routing the new packets, but nothing in between would. Just like today the device at 5.6.7.1 has to know how to route 5.6.7.8/24. It’s just assumed that the special IP knows what to do.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#45

Post by jedberg »

spott wrote: post #40
jedberg wrote: post #2

What's interesting to me is that they always had this cost, but in the past it was always baked into the cost of anything that used a public IP (namely EC2). The prices for IPv4 addresses finally got so high that they had to break it out into a separate charge because otherwise it would be too much to bake into the cost of everything. I also completely believe them when they say they are doing it to force people to b…

Did they reduce the cost of everything that it was baked into? Did EC2 instances get cheaper?

If history is any indication, they would either reduce the cost or just not raise it for a while. AWS is usually pretty good about keeping their profit percent steady and adjusting prices accordingly.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#46

Post by jedberg »

kjs3 wrote: post #39
jedberg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The costs to AWS are having to upgrade all their routers and any other equipment that handles IP (including the management cards in each physical host).

AWS is holding onto those routers running something earlier than, what, IOS 12.4 from 2005? And all those servers with iDRAC6s from, what, 2012? Some day people will stop pretending IPv6 support is something that hasn't been ubiquitous in network gear for a decade or more.

The gear might support it in theory, but may not actually have sufficiently powerful CPUs or enough RAM to actually handle all the traffic. Also there is a bunch of software in between that needs upgrades.

If it were easy and straightforward they would have done it years ago. The fact that even today most things AWS don’t support ipv6 tells me that it’s hard.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#47

Post by colmmacc »

mdaniel wrote: post #38
_cenw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is a terrible discriminator unless you want to advantage the rich. This would fuck up connectivity for everyone that relies on affordable hosting long before it'd force a rusted old enterprise to adopt IPv6. dig github.com AAAA

I hear you, and do appreciate your point. But, what other incentive alignment levers are available for corporations than their bottom line? Also, I'm just saying: $ dig gitlab.com. AAAA 2606:4700:90:0:f22e:fbec:5bed:a9b9 I'd bet that's in no small part due to them hosting on GCP Interestingly, it seems AWS is the outlier in the "IPv6 control plane is a fad" stance $ dig admin.googleapis.com. AAAA # as one might expec…

    $ dig AAAA ec2.us-east-1.api.aws
    ...
    2600:1f70:8000:a0:41d7:f53b:34f4:5798
The EC2 API is available over IPv6. AWS services that support IPv6 for their APIs use the .aws TLD and the SDKs and CLIs know how to invoke that when IPv6 is preferred. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#dua...

The reason is for backwards compatibility. If IPv6 was simply added to the original names, some clients would instantly shift from using IPv4 to IPv6 and in the process break any customer IAM policy in place that is restricted by IP address. Some day it may be the right call to let that kind of breakage happen, but for now the preference is to ensure that customers are not surprised.

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

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#48

Post by vel0city »

jedberg wrote: post #43
vel0city wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So your IPv6 would be 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8, and old routers would just see 5.6.7.8 and route to the place where that IP should go. Thats absolutely not what would happen to an IPv4 only router though. You're fundamentally misunderstanding what IPv4 actually is. That IPv4 router getting a packet with a source address of 9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16 addressed to 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8 wouldn't know to route it to 5.6.7.8. That packet…

I assume the high bits would be in the variable length ip option field. So to an old stack it would look like a packet from 13.14.15.16 to 5.6.7.8. Both of those devices would have to be capable of routing ipv6 packets, but nothing in between would.

Hmm, might work for the middle boxes that just do routing.

This would then only really work with both ends supporting this new IPv6 though. If one side only spoke OG IPv4 and the other side spoke this weird IPv6 with half its address bits in the header, there's a good chance the IPv4 side would just ignore the header bits on its return packets and thus wouldn't address it right. So, while that router in the middle might route these packets OK, you'd still practically need an IPv4 address to talk to other IPv4 devices. Which means we'd still have this mixed support, or that 5.6.7.8 would need to pretty much be a complete stateful NAT keeping track of connections for 6 to 4.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#49

Post by kichik »

luhn wrote: post #15

What's really offensive about this is that AWS does not have good enough IPv6 support for most customers to migrate off of IPv4, even if they want to. ALB uses 2-4 IPv4 addresses. It supports dualstack, but not IPv6-only. CloudFront does not support IPv6 origins. All APIs except for a handful are IPv4-only, so you either need a VPC endpoint (priced per month per AZ per API) or an IPv4 address to communicate with them…

I find the lack of IPv6 support for their own APIs the most insulting. In my case, I would end up paying more for VPC Endpoints than I would for IPv4 addresses. There is no escaping from this new fee. I really hope they resolve this soon.

Re: AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

#50

Post by mdaniel »

colmmacc wrote: post #47
mdaniel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you, and do appreciate your point. But, what other incentive alignment levers are available for corporations than their bottom line? Also, I'm just saying: $ dig gitlab.com. AAAA 2606:4700:90:0:f22e:fbec:5bed:a9b9 I'd bet that's in no small part due to them hosting on GCP Interestingly, it seems AWS is the outlier in the "IPv6 control plane is a fad" stance $ dig admin.googleapis.com. AAAA # as one might expec…

$ dig AAAA ec2.us-east-1.api.aws ... 2600:1f70:8000:a0:41d7:f53b:34f4:5798 The EC2 API is available over IPv6. AWS services that support IPv6 for their APIs use the .aws TLD and the SDKs and CLIs know how to invoke that when IPv6 is preferred. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#dua... The reason is for backwards compatibility. If IPv6 was simply added to the original names, some clients woul…

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger, but that is pretty up there in the list of dumbest things, and accompanying reason for dumb things, I've heard in quite a long time

Also, I especially enjoy that control-f "iam" or "sts" on https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su... is all hurp-durp as is $(dig sts.api.aws. AAAA) so I guess one should be sure to email themselves some credentials in any such IPv6-only EC2 setup. I wondered if it was just a documentation oversight but https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/sts.html seems to agree

Now I'm just deathly curious and will try to remember to boot up one of these allegedly IPv6-only EC2 setups to see what running $(aws --debug sts get-caller-identity) does from one of those Instance Profiles

Post reply on HN