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

61–70 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#61

Post by Spivak »

aednichols wrote: post #54
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.

NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.

This is missing the point mostly, my own sites have supported ipv6 for a going on a decade because it was fun to get it working. But that's a very different thing than supporting only IPv6.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#62

Post by patmcc »

SteveNuts wrote: post #57
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'm shocked this isn't a feature of a VPC out of the box (shared internet bound traffic). You should only need a NAT gateway if you want the traffic to come out of a single set of external IPs that you control. Almost all of my use cases I could easily ride out to the internet through a shared pipe (apt updates and such) and don't care whatsoever what IP that exits the AWS network from, since I'm not applying firewal…

>>> and don't care whatsoever what IP that exits the AWS network from

You'll start to care pretty quickly if it's the same IP as a bad actor that's blocked everywhere.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#63

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

aednichols wrote: post #54
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.

NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.

For example, rather than simply routing IP packets and then forgetting them, you need to statefully inspect every TCP segment and every supposedly connectionless UDP conversation, you need to maintain state for every live conversation, and you need to mitigate DOS with all those resources.

At that point, you might as well be running a Layer 7 Firewall or an Intrusion Protection System.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#64

Post by psanford »

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?

aws is many things but 'incompetent' is not one of them.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#66

Post by ketralnis »

kccqzy wrote: post #60
wongarsu wrote: post #51

This finally puts real pressure on software and services to work on IPv6 only. I wouldn't be surprised if within 1-2 release cycles lots of distributions suddenly update just fine with just IPv6, package mangers can download packages over IPv6, lots of APIs gain solid and well-tested IPv6 support, etc.

Apple has been demanding apps support IPv6 only for years now. They reject your app if it fails under NAT64. The end user side is mostly a solved problem.

For iOS maybe. Most of those applications are also using Apple's networking libraries and are effectively required to be on Apple's infinite software update treadmill to continue to be listed, keeping them young and hip in perpetuity. This is the upside to that treadmill, things are up to date or just stop working.

But I don't think that's representative. "Or just stop working" isn't a valid alternative to the rest of the world. Outside of mobile ecosystems and maybe web development most things aren't on these 6 to 12 month update cycles. It would be absolutely unreasonable to tell a hospital that every piece of hardware and software and MRI machine in their building has to be upgraded every 2 years or it's positively geriatric and do you even `pacman -Syyu` bro?

Theres a whole world of things that haven't been, and may never be, transitioned. Useful things like utility control computers and even peoples' 10 year old, still perfectly functional and supported desktops. Heck, my "end user" newly-installed fibre ISP doesn't support IPv6! And their previous DSL installation to the same address did! So much for "solved problem" :(

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#67

Post by p1mrx »

Spivak wrote: post #61
aednichols wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.

This is missing the point mostly, my own sites have supported ipv6 for a going on a decade because it was fun to get it working. But that's a very different thing than supporting only IPv6.

It's best for an ISP to deploy IPv6 and CGNATv4 in parallel, so the NAT only needs to handle traffic for services that don't support IPv6 (e.g. news.ycombinator.com)

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#68

Post by mgaunard »

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.

Leasing an IPv4 is 0.40 per month. The 39.60 on top is just their margin.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#70

Post by mark242 »

jeremyjh wrote: post #49
mark242 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anything that an IP address can be attached to is already accumulating a charge, just by existing and running. EC2, NAT gateway, ELB, etc. What's "actually unused" then? Minimum amount of traffic? I don't think it's in Amazon's purview to make those judgement calls.
Post reply on HN