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

71–80 of 377 posts

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#71

Post by ishanjain28 »

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…

So for this, Run your apps in public subnets that are attached to IGW.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#72

Post by ishanjain28 »

mgaunard wrote: post #68
whalesalad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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.

Where?

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#73

Post by jeremyjh »

mark242 wrote: post #70
jeremyjh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I meant by unused is that there might not be a client that ever connects to that IP address, so the public IP address itself might not be used even if its attached to a resource.

> I don't think it's in Amazon's purview to make those judgement calls.

I already said I don't agree with GP that this is a motive for Amazon.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#74

Post by ishanjain28 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #58
whalesalad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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.

Most users are below 10Mbps average, so yes $480 per year is a huge price for a fraction of a percent share of a router (plus redundancy).

Okay and those users can easily use a much cheaper NAT instance instead of managed NAT Gateways.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#75

Post by secondcoming »

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.

Last time we used GCP's NAT gateway it was constantly dropping SYN packets. We had to revert to using External IPs on machines that talked to the wider internet.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#76

Post by alberth »

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-has-hoarded-billions-o...

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#77

Post by candiddevmike »

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.

Businesses and organizations are holding IPv6 back, not consumers. No one I talk to is prioritizing IPv6 migrations or spending money to upgrade gear that will support it. Maybe some net new stuff might get it, but for most businesses IPv4 is and will be the default, simply because they can't be bothered to do something different.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#78

Post by eastbound »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #17
Hikikomori wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On ELB yes.

ELB is a substantial cost itself, though.

And not very good, together with the auto scaling groups, it performs the record act of not being able to do an instance refresh without downtime. We’ve put countless hours into that, seems like a simple problem, forums say it’s not solved.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#79

Post by cferry »

The only barrier for me to go IPv6-only is those VPS that are provided with a single /128 IPv6, and I do not know of a service that would offer IPv6 tunneling other than HE, that requires an IPv4 endpoint. The day I get a full /48 or /64 with my VPSes, I'm ready to drop IPv4.

Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

#80

Post by blibble »

psanford wrote: post #64
blibble wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

explain that page any other way
Post reply on HN