10 ms·
AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses
- netcraft 3y agoI personally dont think 45$ per year is going to change habits that much, especially for larger customers who have a lot of public IPs.
- foobarian 3y agoHuh, speaking of lots of public IPs, most of MIT's old class A is now owned by Amazon :-( NetRange: 18.32.0.0 - 18.255.255.255
- Analemma_ 3y agoWhy :-( ? There's no way MIT was using more than a tiny fraction of that /8; now it's actually being put to real use, and MIT probably got some money out of it. Everybody wins.
- amluto 3y agoMIT was using it. Not efficiently, but MIT sold addresses that were in use at the time due to what appeared to be IT ineptitude. It was also shortsighted. It was a massive resource, MIT presumably sold it for under $200M (I assume far under), and now AWS plans to rent the addresses at a rate that will be around $600M per year if they manage to rent them all.
- wmf 3y agoThe market is working :-)
- kiririn 3y agoHobby customers can buy an entire VPS, complete with IPv4 to tunnel through, for 1/4 that
- Operyl 3y agoHobby customers aren't using AWS, by and large. And it's only a matter of time before we see more and more costs for IPv4 down in these tiers as well.
- voytec 3y ago> Hobby customers aren't using AWS AWS has the easy to use Lightsail[1] VPS offer with cheapest product at $3.5/mo but they'll likely increase these prices as well, since there's an IPv4 address included. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/pricing/
- rusl1 3y agoI've got a 2GB ram 2 CPU for the same price on IONOS
- preommr 3y agoCounterpoint: My hobby projects all use AWS because that's what I am familiar with, and they have the cheapest prices. I also reuse a lot of resources like a database to further save costs.
- pnpnp 3y agoTotally disagree! :) My monthly costs are minuscule with a reserved with a t4g instance, Lambda, S3 and Cloudfront as my primary usage. Honestly, it beats out the “budget” VPS providers I was previously using, and is a heck of a lot more powerful/reliable.
- lokar 3y agoAlready a lot of discussion about this at my job. It’s a lot of $ at scale. We will put a bunch of work in to avoid the fee.
- rblatz 3y agoAt $45 a year per IP address you’d have to spend less than a man hour per address to even conceivably approach break even. And I normally would be worried if my company was focusing on break even initiatives instead of higher impact ones.
- toast0 3y agoDepends how many IPs you're using. If you're using 10, who cares; if you're using 100, I dunno. If it's 1,000 or more, that's real money you probably shouldn't be pissing away. (OTOH, a lot of cloud spend is pissing away money, so what's another $45k/year)
- lokar 3y agoAnd at 100,000+ it’s worth real engineering
- Beached 3y agoyou don't have to break even on implementation. you will get billed every single year, so if you can have two dudes solve this in 3 months, you can break even in 3 years and every year after that you saved money
- rblatz 3y agoIn most companies that would worry me. That there isn’t anything more impactful to work on than a project that breaks even in 3 years likely is over staffed and I’m likely on the chopping block when things turn south.
- wongarsu 3y agoBut if you have 100 backend servers that mostly communicate on the internal network/VPC and need their IPv4 mostly for updates, it seems easy to justify standing up a proxy and reconfiguring your template. At least if your engineers aren't in Silicon Valley and thus don't cost you $400/h.
- wmf 3y agoPreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424
- metadat 3y agoThanks! Macro-expanded: AWS: IPv4 addresses cost too much, so you’re going to pay https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424 (3 days ago, 186 comments) AWS Begins Charging for Public IPv4 Addresses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 (6 days ago, 36 comments) AWS Public IPv4 Address Charge and Public IP Insights https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910855 (6 days ago, 9 comments)
- MayeulC 3y agoYou make it sounds like that expansion was performed automatically. Is that something HN's reply box supports?
- metadat 3y agoHaha, no. I do it manually, but have gotten pretty efficient at it to the point where it only takes a minute.
- bombcar 3y agoMacro expansion as in dang made it bigger by hand. Maybe he has a script.
- metadat 3y agoDang has mentioned before that he doesn't use any scripts for his HN posts. He likely refrains because it would go against the intended spirit of HN - interesting discussion and genuine interaction.
- devit 3y agoDo they offer shared IPv4 addresses with routing by HTTPS SNI?
- Hikikomori 3y agoOn ELB yes.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoELB is a substantial cost itself, though.
- eastbound 3y agoAnd 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.
- Hikikomori 3y agoWith a single instance? Could also do blue green instead.
- zomglings 3y agoThis is not true. You have to define health checks on your instances that reflect the availability of all services they host. And you have to allow there to be more instances than your target number in each autoscaling group.
- dilyevsky 3y agoCould you point to relevant thread please?
- profmonocle 3y agoCloudfront as well.
- grobbyy 3y agoThis is a hidden price hike. It would be more reasonable if there was a corresponding decrease in server costs.
- marcus0x62 3y agoTheir costs for delivering one service are increasing so they should lower their prices on another?
- ribosometronome 3y agoIf they're separating out functionality from that service and charging for it, sure. Customers who don't pay extra are getting less service than they used to for the same money they used to pay.
- ketralnis 3y ago> Customers who don't pay extra are getting less service than they used to for the same money they used to pay Sure, yeah. That's how price increases work. Nobody's arguing that it's not a price increase. But if your delivered pizza's costs are fuel+ingredients and the price of fuel goes up, well, the whole price goes up or you have to give on the amount of pizza. The price of the ingredients didn't go down, so yeah you're just going to have to pay more or get less pizza. Sorry. You can quibble on the pizzeria's margin I guess: AWS could just eat the increased price themselves, and probably have been until now. But apparently they don't want to so they're raising the price to compensate in frankly the most reasonable way possible. AWS has insane pricing for many of its services, especially bandwidth, but this isn't one of them.
- ketralnis 3y agoI don't think either of those is true? It's not hidden, they put it right up on their blog https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address-charge-public-ip-insights/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address... the opening line of which is "We are introducing a new charge for public IPv4 addresses" and when it starts and what the cost is. I assume like every other AWS charge it's broken out in great detail on their billing statements and even have APIs to query costs. Usually they send an email with these changes too so if they haven't I assume they will. It's a regular old price hike but it's not a hidden one. Secondly since "the cost to acquire a single public IPv4 address has risen more than 300% over the past 5 years", there's no accompanying decrease in server costs that would be "reasonable" to account for this. Charging for the IP itself makes total sense since that's the cost they're accounting for. If it were packed into the instance costs, then instances without a public IP would be paying for it too. This incentivises you to do exactly what they want you to do: use fewer public IPs where you don't need them. This is way more reasonable than an across-the-board instance cost bump which would be a hidden price hike. This is a bridge toll that covers the cost of the bridge by its users instead of raising taxes on everyone. I guess you're wanting to pay the same and just distribute the cost between the IP and the instance differently? And hey me too, I love not being charged more. But they want to account for their costs without eating into their margin and this is how they're going about it. You don't have to like it; I sure don't. You can wish AWS would just keep eating the cost for you; me too! But I don't think "hidden" or "unreasonable" is accurate.
- londons_explore 3y agoAs long as IPv6 remains free, and there is some kind of ipv4 accessible proxy for web stuff for free, I'm happy.
- mnutt 3y agoI don't see where the latter is the case? For that I believe regular NAT gateway bandwidth charges apply?
- blibble 3y agothe ipv6 support is sporadic and not in all regions https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-support.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su... why are these large hosting companies so incompetent?
- Beached 3y agobecause they don't have to be. when you own 20% of the entire Internet, you can just do whatever you want, very few can compete
- psanford 3y agoaws is many things but 'incompetent' is not one of them.
- blibble 3y agoexplain that page any other way
- est31 3y agoAWS has spent billions (with a b) on ipv4 addresses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36991477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36991477 This investment wasn't just of a strategic nature: they have enough market power to hold back the move towards ipv6.
- amluto 3y ago> 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.
- pnpnp 3y agoI 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.
- ransackdev 3y agoI think that as a business and given the fact they are now charging for a previously free service (public IPs), offering a now paid service as free would nullify the reasons for doing what they are doing. They don't owe anyone anything for free.
- inopinatus 3y agoThat doesn't follow, because the reason is that IP addresses are scarce.
- ransackdev 3y agoThat’s not anything new. They’ve been scarce for a decade and they’ve footed the bill this long so why change it now other then someone noticed the opportunity
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Ensorceled 3y ago> They don't owe anyone anything for free. I always love this comments. We pay them literally hundreds of thousands a year.
- anderspitman 3y agoHot take. IPv6 adoption is never going to hit 100% because SNI routing covers most of the cases people actually need. If UDP functionality is necessary QUIC will be used. I wish this wasn't the case. It would be nice if the software was good enough that more people were enabled to self host.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoWhich has been a more significant driver of address-space exhaustion: web servers, or consumer/corporate client devices?
- kccqzy 3y agoNot a hot take at all. We don't need 100% IPv6 adoption because we can't control what people do in their private networks. If a load balancer supports IPv6 that's good enough, even if the load balancer talks to the backend over IPv4.
- supertrope 3y agoIn practice the Internet does not deliver IP packets. Only UDP or TCP is universally supported. Some firewalls, security appliances, filters, and proxies limit end to end connectivity to just TCP 443. Everything over IP has turned into everything over HTTP.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe]
- wongarsu 3y agoThis 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.
- kccqzy 3y agoApple 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.
- ketralnis 3y agoFor 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" :(
- kccqzy 3y agoA 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.
- mgaunard 3y agoAnything in the cloud is 10 times the price it's worth. It's essentially a tax on the people gullible enough to believe in cloud tech or unable to set up real hardware.
- yuppie_scum 3y agoWell next time you get that big customer that scales your traffic by 500%, enjoy sitting around waiting for Dell to ship you a bunch of servers or whatever while we just change an integer in a repo and hit terraform apply.
- mgaunard 3y agoWhile you could make a case that it is convenient short-term, it is very cost-ineffective.
- alberth 3y agoThis 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-of-dollars-worth-of-ipv4-but-why https://www.techradar.com/news/amazon-has-hoarded-billions-o...
- madsbuch 3y agoMost applications will be able to move to v6 eventually. Hopefully moves like this will push that development.
- andrewstuart2 3y agoEven already, I think you can get away with doing almost everything v6 with a much smaller number of ipv4s for legacy traffic. I say that but still largely use v4 for everything, so maybe I'm not one to talk.
- pantalaimon 3y agoUnless you need to pull anything from GitHub…
- kccqzy 3y agoThen direct your anger at Microsoft, not Amazon.
- doublerabbit 3y agoWhy not both? Both are dominating the internet-cyberspace and both are screwing it over for everyone else.
- 3y ago
- cferry 3y agoThe 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.
- xuki 3y agoVultr/Linode offer a full /64. Linode even offers /56 with justification.
- kccqzy 3y agoAmazon gives you more than a single /128. So your complaint is irrelevant if you actually use AWS.
- mgbmtl 3y agoDoes your VPS assign you multiple ipv4 addresses? Otherwise seems like feature parity. I use ipv6 everywhere, but I get annoyed when some features are missing. For example, OVH won't let me transfer an IPv6 prefix like they do for IPv4. I thought I could just migrate my VMs to another box, but one of them had lots of clients with their own DNS/domains, so it was a huge pain to update.
- MayeulC 3y agoOVH gives me a single /128. Spam whitelists are at /64 grsnularity, so I cannot use IPv6 e-mail. this is not parity! I asked their support about this a year ago. They said they were discussing increasing the prefix size internally. That kind of makes me want to move to Hertzner or another competitor.
- jeroenhd 3y agoA /128 is laughable and honestly insufficient. I believe OVH handed me a /128 at some point, which is why I used HE. Every other VPS platform I've seen handed out at least /64s. You need a better VPS provider.
- anonymous344 3y ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 3y ago> dollar is predicted to crash any time. Clever use of passive voice but predicted by whom?
- waithuh 3y agoThat YouTube channel that pumps out a 'US is going down' video every other month, of course.
- sacnoradhq 3y agoInflation has been aberrant over the past 3 years in some areas, i.e., food, from profit-price spirals but there is not widespread hyperinflation. No one reputable is predicting the USD will crash imminently. US T-bills lost a notch of rating due to long-term declining governance tied to the cozy relationship and revolving door between Wall St. and federal regulators. This is a form of corruption that undermines the economy and strategic power.
- brickteacup 3y agoyour social credit score has been increased by 100 points. thank you for your service comrade!
- GabeIsko 3y agoThey want people to use EIP right? Is this really a problem for anything other than a device that cannot perform dns lookups.
- decasia 3y agoSo I have a tiny personal website hosted on ec2. Right now the DNS points to the server's public IPv4 address. But I don't really want to pay $40+/year for an IPv4 for my personal project. Does anyone have experience switching a small personal site to IPv6 only in 2023? I'm guessing the vast majority of my (North American/European-based) friends and visitors can probably connect just fine to an IPv6 address. I wish I knew what percentage it is. I guess I could add an AAAA record and check what percentage of traffic actually uses it.
- Saris 3y agoWhy not switch to a different provider? AWS is really pricey for what you get
- capableweb 3y agoAccording to Google (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html), 60% of word-wide users wouldn't be able to visit your website. In the US, it would be about ~50% of users, while in Europe it's ranging from 30% (France) to 98% (Spain) who wouldn't be able to visit the website. But yeah, I'd do what you say in the bottom of your comment. Add AAAA records and then see how many people uses ipv6 compared to ipv4 and then decide.
- decasia 3y agoSigh, so basically it's impossible to switch without shredding an already tiny audience. I'm sure it won't be a nice UX either to have a "can't connect to this IP" error in someone's browser. IPv6 has been around for so long now, I'm disappointed it doesn't have a little bit higher adoption.
- smileybarry 3y agoAnd if all else fails, you can put something like Cloudflare in front of it to handle IPv4 traffic.
- 3y ago
- codetrotter 3y agoGood. Maybe we will soon see more widespread adoption of IPv6.
- newaccount74 3y agoHetzner cloud has been charging for public IPv4 addresses for a while. It makes sense. If you have lots of servers, many of them probably don't need a public IPv4 address.
- zgluck 3y agoFor ECS users who depend on public IPs to avoid insane NAT GW fees when doing CI/CD.. I guess we have two options: a) build something that automatically scales broken services to 0 b) use that AWS service that let's you pull ECR images without internet access; I forgot the name of it...
- profmonocle 3y agoc) nudge all the services your CI system interacts with to enable IPv6 to save their AWS users money. ;-)
- dang 3y agoWe changed the url from https://www.infoq.com/news/2023/08/aws-ec2-public-ipv4/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2023/08/aws-ec2-public-ipv4/, which points to this.
- chrismarlow9 3y agoDigital landlord. Anybody want to rent a domain?
- hakube 3y agoDomain names are basically for rent. If you don't renew on time, you lose it
- mythz 3y agoAlways more expensive on AWS: $0.005/hr =~ $3.60/mo We pay $0.55/mo (€0.50) on Hetzner.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] The other large threads on this a week ago (when this link was also posted) weren't good enough? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36910994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36942424
- sgjohnson 3y agoGood. Anything that pushes people towards IPv6 is good news. They should have charged more. $3.50/mo per IP for their average customer is going to be a completely insignificant amount of money.
- matesz 3y agoI never understood why AWS has so much appeal when it comes to cloud infrastructure. Why not cheaper clouds? Is it about scalability, reliability, speed, modernity of equipment, customer support, UI, speed of networks? Let's say the requirement is to build a platform like Twitter with 100mln daily active users. Wouldn't cloud like Hetzner with AWS/GCP/Azure failover, survive this? I worked with AWS as a developer for a long time, but in pretty much ever case 10 was more than enough. Would be very grateful if someone could share some insight into it!
- abhishekjha 3y agoWhat do you suggest? Something like a VPS service, DO?
- matesz 3y agoYes [1], I was looking into Hetzner, which has an api to create machines programatically. I assume for bigger customers you could rent out collocated racks which would satisfy requirements. I don't have any experience in it though. [1] example list of clouds https://www.vpsbenchmarks.com/plans https://www.vpsbenchmarks.com/plans
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoI still don't get why we can't just expand IPv4 into IPv5 by adding some new blocks to the front. So instead of 192.0.0.1 it becomes 0.0.0.0.192.0.0.1 All existing addresses work, you simply append zeroes to any address which is too short for the new standard. Any old timey software still works as long as you use a router between the two systems with an old timey address. This would give us as many addresses as we want without any changes or downsides. So why no do?
- paulsutter 3y agoThat's way too logical. Have some respect for the artisanal bike shedding that went into IPv6! Calling it IPv5 is genius though.
- matt_kantor 3y agoIP version 5 actually was a real thing[0] (though it's usually called "Internet Stream Protocol"). It still used 32-bit addresses though. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Stream_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Stream_Protocol
- doomjunky 3y agoIP is not a text format (like HTTP). It's a binary format where each field of the IPv4 header has an exactly defined offset and length. The source IP address is placed at offset 96 and has a length of 32 bit, the destination IP address sits right afterwards with the same length. Changing anything will result in new protocol definition, et voilà that's IPv6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_version_4#Header https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_version_4#He...
- ytans 3y agoIn addition, there are also impacts on other protocols such as ARP, DHCP, ICMP, DNS etc. So it's not as simple as changing only the IP packet format either.
- anvuong 3y ago
- gbraad 3y agoSomething Fly.io also does, so they aren't the only one's.
- backendanon 3y agoIf I get too upset about it, I can find a cloud provider who isn't trying to find ways to nickel and dime me.
- backendanon 3y agoActually, I'm looking into Oracle Cloud.
- rynop 3y agoWhy does cloudfront not support connecting to an ELB on a private subnet? https://stackoverflow.com/a/74397920/563420 https://stackoverflow.com/a/74397920/563420 Seems like a big blindspot with no work-around.
- hnarn 3y agoAs someone who recently wanted to try out IPv6 to learn more about it, I can say that I welcome anything that might help improve the sorry state of IPv6 adoption. This is a hostile and destructive move, I mean obviously, it's Amazon after all, but one can at least hope that as IPv4 increasingly becomes a cost, it could drive interest to the alternative that has been left out in the cold for like two decades. Most end-users don't care what they're using as long as they can access the Internet, and since our other option to IPv6 adoption is living in a CGNAT hellscape that destroys the whole peer-to-peer idea of the Internet, then for the love of all that is holy start moving. Personally I think nation states need to take a bigger responsibility here and create incentives to move the market, because it's one of those things where the negative effects aren't obvious until they're overwhelming.