[flagged]
AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
81–90 of 377 posts
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#82> 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.
It's not really computationally expensive, it's memory expensive. You need per connection state.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#83Earlier 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.
> is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes.
There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective.
Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.)
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
A hospital's MRI machine doesn't need an internet connection. IPv4 only intranets are fine and we are never going to get rid of them.
But anything that connects to the internet needs to be updated regularly, if only for security and vulnerability reasons. If you have a 10-year-old functional and supported desktop, it most likely supports being IPv6 only just fine. The typical 10-year-old desktop came from the factory with Windows 8 and could be upgraded to Windows 10 (since it's supported). It even gets relatively new features such as IPv6 RDNSS allowing DHCP-less deployments.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#85This 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-…
Most applications will be able to move to v6 eventually. Hopefully moves like this will push that development.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#86Earlier 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.
Plus $0.045 per gigabyte of data that passes through it. AWS has notoriously high egress fees.
It's not just egress in case of NAT - they charge you 4.5c per processed GB which means in both directions. This trips a lot of people up.
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#87[flagged]
> dollar is predicted to crash any time.
Clever use of passive voice but predicted by whom?
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Could you point to relevant thread please?
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
NAT is pretty computationally intensive, this is why e.g. ISPs & mobile carriers are pushing IPv6 over CGNAT.
It's not really computationally expensive, it's memory expensive. You need per connection state.
it already has stateful firewall
so that's: source ip, dest ip, protocol, source port, dest port, connection state (say 16 bytes total)
doing NAT too is what, 3 more bytes per connection (8 bits for an offset into an IP table and 16 bits for the translated port)
Re: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> is it cost effective for people who need the resources? yes. There is no possible use case in no possible universe where AWS is cost effective. Renting the same compute resources wholesale will cost you 20 times less. (Not a typo.)
sure they became a multi billion dollar business by not being cost effective