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

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61

Post by jedberg »

kjs3 wrote: post #60
jedberg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it were easy and straightforward they would have done it years ago. You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Neither do I. It might be operational issues. It might be legacy code. It might just be because they've figured not doing it makes them more money or because they think not enough customers are asking for it. Hell, it could be as simple as the rig…

> You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is.

Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth.

> But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it";

I never said the hardware doesn't support it. I said the hardware needs upgrades to support it at their scale, which includes software updates to the hardware, as well as the operations around said hardware.

It's been a priority for them for years and customers have been asking for years. It's not done because it requires a lot of work and capital. Hopefully the revenue they bring in from charging for IPv4 will help offset the cost of upgrades.

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

#62

Post by kjs3 »

jedberg wrote: post #61
kjs3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were easy and straightforward they would have done it years ago. You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Neither do I. It might be operational issues. It might be legacy code. It might just be because they've figured not doing it makes them more money or because they think not enough customers are asking for it. Hell, it could be as simple as the rig…

> You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth. > But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it"; I never said the hardware doesn't support it. I said the hardware needs upgrades to support it at their scale , which includes software updates to the hardware, as well as the operations around said hardware.…

Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth.

Thanks for that. I needed a good chuckle after today.

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

#63

Post by jedberg »

kjs3 wrote: post #62
jedberg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth. > But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it"; I never said the hardware doesn't support it. I said the hardware needs upgrades to support it at their scale , which includes software updates to the hardware, as well as the operations around said hardware.…

Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth. Thanks for that. I needed a good chuckle after today.

I mean you can choose to believe me or not, but I just worked at Amazon for the last two years and worked with AWS networking products while I was there, including this: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery...

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

#64

Post by bombcar »

kelnos wrote: post #33
gtvwill wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Seriously is there any real technical hurdle why we didn't do it this way? Yes, because designing and implementing a protocol like USB is nothing like designing and implementing an internetworking protocol. > 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 You can't just add address bits to a fixed-size protocol header that wasn't…

What probably could have been done (and kind of was done with NAT) would have been to move one byte from the port number to the address, giving us 256 additional “Internets” worth of addresses but limiting each address to 256 ports.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] »

cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #41
gtvwill wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by p1mrx »

cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #41
gtvwill wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here are all the IKEA products you can spell in hex:

A16 ALG, A15EDA ALSEDA, A77E57 ATTEST, BA66E BAGGE, BA615 BAGIS, BA7157 BATIST, BEA7A BEATA, BE57A BESTÅ, BE7A BETA, B1BB1 BIBBI, B155A BISSA, B1716 BITIG, B1AD BLAD, B1ADE7 BLADET, B0A17 BOALT, B0110 BOLLÖ, B055E BOSSE, B0A5 BOÅS, BA5715 BÄSTIS, DA7A DATA, DE701F DETOLF, D10D DIOD, D170 DITO, D177E DITTE, D0F7A DOFTA, D01D DOLD, DA71D DÅTID, ED17 EDIT, E1DE EIDE, E16A ELGÅ, FAD0 FADO, FA5 FAS, FA57B0 FASTBO, F1BBE FIBBE, F1A7A FLÄTA, F070 FOTO, 6A5E11 GASELL, 61DEA GIDEÅ, 61E5 GLES, 610BA1 GLOBAL, 610DA GLÖDA, 60D15 GODIS, 605A GOSA, 60516 GOSIG, 1BE57AD IBESTAD, 157AD ISTAD, 1ADDA LADDA, 1ADE LADE, 1066A LOGGA, 1075 LOTS, 1A77 LÄTT, 0B1 OBI, 0DDA ODDA, 011E OLLE, 5A1B0 SALBO, 5177A SITTA, 50DA SODA, 50F1A SOFIA, 501 SOL, 50157A SOLSTA, 57A11 STÄLL, 7A6 TAG, 7A55A TASSA, 7177A TITTA, 70B1A5 TOBIAS, 70B0 TOBO, 70F7B0 TOFTBO, 706A TOGA, 7016 TOLG, 7016A TOLGA, ADA1 ÅDAL, A5E1E ÅSELE, 061A ÖGLA

Quite a few actually. I used https://lar5.com/ikea/ for the input words.

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

#67

Post by p1mrx »

bombcar wrote: post #64
kelnos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seriously is there any real technical hurdle why we didn't do it this way? Yes, because designing and implementing a protocol like USB is nothing like designing and implementing an internetworking protocol. > 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 You can't just add address bits to a fixed-size protocol header that wasn't…

What probably could have been done (and kind of was done with NAT) would have been to move one byte from the port number to the address, giving us 256 additional “Internets” worth of addresses but limiting each address to 256 ports.

That's a good idea; it's called MAP-T.

Here's a NANOG presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfYHCpfr_w

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

#68

Post by fulafel »

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…

It's also pretty ridiculous their reverse proxy (ALB) "dual stack" mode can't serve IPv6 clients unless your backend app server is also IPv6. This is so much worse than anything you'd set up yourself.

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

#69

Post by fulafel »

kelnos wrote: post #30
digitalsushi wrote: post #5

Jeez. Eventually someone is going to break down and invent a new IP solution that doubles the number of addresses that we have now. I mean if I were doing it, I'd probably make it more like 1,028 times bigger but maybe it would present as hubris. Addresses would be so plentiful they'd basically be free. And since I am using magic to do all of this, I'd invent it over 20 years ago, so that it'd have been decades since…

I know you're joking & making fun of glacial IPv6 adoption, but if IPv6 was just IPv4 + more address bits, I'm sure it'd be fully adopted by now and IPv4 would be something kids taking computer networking courses would be taught about in the "history" section. IPv6 involved too many other changes to make it a straightforward upgrade. I agree that it's ridiculous that we still don't have universal v6 support, but let'…

There's new features in IPv6 but if you don't use them, it's pretty just more bits as far as applications and users can see. The biggest change is probably replacing ARP, but that part has been unchanged and shipping since the start and invisible to users. And of course there's also simplifications vs IPv4.

The biggest shock is for people who have gotten the NAT stockhold syndrome (which always went against IPv4 internet architecture, there's a reason it's outlawed in the standard track IP RFCs).

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

#70

Post by inemesitaffia »

kjs3 wrote: post #62
jedberg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth. > But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it"; I never said the hardware doesn't support it. I said the hardware needs upgrades to support it at their scale , which includes software updates to the hardware, as well as the operations around said hardware.…

Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth. Thanks for that. I needed a good chuckle after today.

You know he's like a Staff Engineer at Amazon right now right?
Post reply on HN