AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses

&gt; 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.<p>It would be nice if this came with reasonably priced NAT gateways. The current pricing is outrageous.

This was expected, and rent seeking.<p>AWS over the last decade has spent $ billions buying up ASN blocks.<p>I&#x27;ve never been one to use the word &quot;rent seeking&quot;, 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&#x27;s a depleting supply of them) - it&#x27;s a great business to charge rents on.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techradar.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;amazon-has-hoarded-billions-of-dollars-worth-of-ipv4-but-why" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techradar.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;amazon-has-hoarded-billions-o...</a>

This finally puts real pressure on software and services to work on IPv6 only. I wouldn&#x27;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.

Previously: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36910855">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36910855</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36910994">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36910994</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36942424">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36942424</a>

So I have a tiny personal website hosted on ec2. Right now the DNS points to the server&#x27;s public IPv4 address. But I don&#x27;t really want to pay $40+&#x2F;year for an IPv4 for my personal project.<p>Does anyone have experience switching a small personal site to IPv6 only in 2023?<p>I&#x27;m guessing the vast majority of my (North American&#x2F;European-based) friends and visitors can probably connect just fine to an IPv6 address. I wish I knew what percentage it is.<p>I guess I could add an AAAA record and check what percentage of traffic actually uses it.

The only barrier for me to go IPv6-only is those VPS that are provided with a <i>single</i> &#x2F;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 &#x2F;48 or &#x2F;64 with my VPSes, I&#x27;m ready to drop IPv4.

As long as IPv6 remains free, and there is some kind of ipv4 accessible proxy for web stuff for free, I&#x27;m happy.

I still don&#x27;t get why we can&#x27;t just expand IPv4 into IPv5 by adding some new blocks to the front.<p>So instead of 192.0.0.1 it becomes 0.0.0.0.192.0.0.1<p>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.<p>This would give us as many addresses as we want without any changes or downsides. So why no do?

I 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?<p>Let&#x27;s say the requirement is to build a platform like Twitter with 100mln daily active users. Wouldn&#x27;t cloud like Hetzner with AWS&#x2F;GCP&#x2F;Azure failover, survive this?<p>I worked with AWS as a developer for a long time, but in pretty much ever case 10 was more than enough.<p>Would be very grateful if someone could share some insight into it!

As 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&#x27;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.<p>Most end-users don&#x27;t care what they&#x27;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&#x27;s one of those things where the negative effects aren&#x27;t obvious until they&#x27;re overwhelming.

I personally dont think 45$ per year is going to change habits that much, especially for larger customers who have a lot of public IPs.

[dupe]<p>The other large threads on this a week ago (when this link was also posted) weren&#x27;t good enough?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36910994">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36910994</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36942424">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36942424</a>

This is a hidden price hike. It would be more reasonable if there was a corresponding decrease in server costs.

Hot 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&#x27;t the case. It would be nice if the software was good enough that more people were enabled to self host.

We changed the url from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.infoq.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2023&#x2F;08&#x2F;aws-ec2-public-ipv4&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.infoq.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2023&#x2F;08&#x2F;aws-ec2-public-ipv4&#x2F;</a>, which points to this.

Always more expensive on AWS: $0.005&#x2F;hr =~ $3.60&#x2F;mo<p>We pay $0.55&#x2F;mo (€0.50) on Hetzner.

Good. Maybe we will soon see more widespread adoption of IPv6.

Good. Anything that pushes people towards IPv6 is good news.<p>They should have charged more. $3.50&#x2F;mo per IP for their average customer is going to be a completely insignificant amount of money.

Hetzner 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&#x27;t need a public IPv4 address.

Why does cloudfront not support connecting to an ELB on a private subnet?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;74397920&#x2F;563420" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;74397920&#x2F;563420</a><p>Seems like a big blindspot with no work-around.

For ECS users who depend on public IPs to avoid insane NAT GW fees when doing CI&#x2F;CD.. I guess we have two options:<p>a) build something that automatically scales broken services to 0<p>b) use that AWS service that let&#x27;s you pull ECR images without internet access; I forgot the name of it...

Do they offer shared IPv4 addresses with routing by HTTPS SNI?

Digital landlord. Anybody want to rent a domain?

They want people to use EIP right? Is this really a problem for anything other than a device that cannot perform dns lookups.

If I get too upset about it, I can find a cloud provider who isn&#x27;t trying to find ways to nickel and dime me.

Something Fly.io also does, so they aren&#x27;t the only one&#x27;s.

[dupe]

Anything in the cloud is 10 times the price it&#x27;s worth.<p>It&#x27;s essentially a tax on the people gullible enough to believe in cloud tech or unable to set up real hardware.