[HN Gopher] AWS Begins Charging for Public IPv4 Addresses
___________________________________________________________________
AWS Begins Charging for Public IPv4 Addresses
Author : wmf
Score : 48 points
Date : 2023-07-28 18:18 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lastweekinaws.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lastweekinaws.com)
| aftbit wrote:
| If you allocate an AWS instance without any public IPv4 address,
| does that mean that it won't be able to access sites on the IPv4
| only internet?
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| I am surprised it took this long.
|
| I wonder if I could resell the attractive numbers.
| rickette wrote:
| Kind of blown away that IPs were still free on AWS.
|
| I'm using mostly Google Cloud and Azure the past few years and as
| the article mentions, they already charge for IPs.
| rvdginste wrote:
| Would it be realistic today to make a commercial website only
| available on an IPv6 address? Or would the website lose too much
| traffic because of that?
| tyingq wrote:
| Google publishes a map of what percentage of users are
| accessing them via IPV6.[1]. The numbers aren't great. The US
| is around 53%, UK 43%, Brazil 45%, France 74%, India 68%. And
| many countries much lower. I believe the setup is such that if
| the end user's IPV6 was functional, they get counted.
|
| [1]
| https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...
| bdavbdav wrote:
| Not in the UK. Most cheap residential BB is v4 only.
| neverrroot wrote:
| $0.005 per hour per IP, or $43.8 per year, is expensive. Too
| expensive.
| wmf wrote:
| Yes, AWS is buying IPs for ~$50 so either they're only
| expecting IPv4 to last for 2-3 years (not) or this charge is
| basically a penalty for people who are bad at networking.
| user6723 wrote:
| what is a stupidity tax
| Sayrus wrote:
| Fortunately, using private IPs behind a NAT Gateway is cheap
| /s
|
| Even for people good at networking but using managed
| services, public IPs on instance can make sense. IPv6 support
| also has its own set of issues.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > penalty for people who are bad at networking
|
| You mean customers? I can't access IPv6-only websites because
| my ISP doesn't support it. Oh, and I have the best ISP in the
| area but none of the ISPs here have IPv6 support.
|
| If you mean routing multiple servers through one that uses
| IPv4 so you only have to pay for 1 machine then yeah, I guess
| I'm bad at networking, that does not sound like something I
| want to maintain.
| wmf wrote:
| _routing multiple servers through one that uses IPv4 so you
| only have to pay for 1 machine_
|
| This is called a NAT gateway and it's AWS networking 101.
| If you're not willing to learn how to use AWS then you're
| going to get ripped off.
| tehbeard wrote:
| Having looked at the pricing for a nat gateway device on
| aws for some lambda related networking woes recently...
| You're getting ripped off still unless you handroll or
| ansible playbook your own nat gateway.
| runamok wrote:
| Nat gateways really only hurt if you have fairly high
| traffic iirc. AWS always dings you on egress traffic in
| general.
|
| In that case this may be preferable: https://docs.aws.ama
| zon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Ins...
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Official post/discussion over here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910855
| seligman99 wrote:
| $0.005 per hour per IP.
|
| Assuming AWS has 50% utilization on IPs they've assigned for EC2,
| this is a $1.28 billion/yr fee they created.
|
| Scale is fun.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| Extra scandalous too since stuff like load balancers will use a
| bunch of IPv4 addresses that they can now charge extra for,
| with no way to avoid the fees since you can't turn off IPv4.
| kubota wrote:
| Jeff will be able to commission another sculpture for his
| yacht.
| chrisbolt wrote:
| That's also assuming that adding the fee with 6 months of
| notice won't make people reduce their IP address usage to avoid
| the fee.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-28 23:02 UTC)