153

Cloud giant AWS will start charging customers for public IPv4 addresses from next year, claiming it is forced to do this because of the increasing scarcity of these and to encourage the use of IPv6 instead.

The update will come into effect on February 1, 2024, when AWS customers will see a charge of $0.005 (half a cent) per IP address per hour for all public IPv4 addresses. ... These charges will apply to all AWS services including EC2, Relational Database Service (RDS) database instances, Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS) nodes, and will apply across all AWS regions, the company said.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] flip@lemmy.nbsp.one 120 points 1 year ago

Hopefully this will push IPv6 adoption further. It is a clusterfuck how long IPv6 exists and how often one has to still fall back to IPv4.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 year ago

It really is well past time to start viewing support of IPv4 as a type of "technical debt."

AWS is just finally putting a price on the cost of that technical debt.

[-] housepanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com 25 points 1 year ago

This is my thought. It's about time greater adoption of IPv6 happens. As much as I don't like corporations getting greedier, in this case however, Amazon is doing us a favor by spurring IPv6 adoption on.

[-] dan@upvote.au 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

IPv6 is already relatively widespread in the USA (and many other countries) on the client-side, especially on mobile networks.

  • T-Mobile's network is almost entirely IPv6-only, using 464XLAT for connectivity to legacy IPv4-only servers.
  • The majority of traffic to Facebook (around 62%) is via IPv6. https://www.facebook.com/ipv6
  • As of June 2022, 73% of Comcast and 72% of AT&T customers had IPv6 connectivity. https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
  • People that play online games often try to use IPv6 to avoid NAT, as it reduces latency.

The main issue is that a lot of sites aren't available over IPv6. Hopefully Amazon helps push that along.

I have IPv6 connectivity through Verizon FiOS. The trouble is that in my area it is poorly implemented and markedly slower than IPv4. I would much rather use 6 but not at a performance penalty.

[-] dan@upvote.au 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ahh, that sucks. Sorry to hear. A proper IPv6 network should be faster than IPv4, since there's no NAT and no complex routing rules.

Agreed! Also smaller packet sizes.

[-] magnus@lemmy.ahall.se 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In Sweden we have just one ISP for non-commercial customers providing native IPv6 adresses (Bahnhof) on fiber connections, and even then we can't get a static prefix from them.

Not quite sure on the mobile ISPs though.

[-] LaggyKar@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

At least Tele2 supports IPv6 on mobile, not sure about others

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] r00ty@kbin.life 10 points 1 year ago

I suspect greed is involved. But since the new allocation of ipv4 hasn't been possible for quite some time in US and Europe. I think the price of those IPs that are assigned to providers is going to gradually rise.

And to think, I remember when I got a business ISDN account for my old office. They pretty much just gave you a free (well included in the price) /24 without even asking.

Different times.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, I see it being a little bit greedy, but honestly?

My entire life I've seen nothing but rent-seeking from giant corporations in most things except this.

IPv4 is essentially super limited in terms of "available land" (read: IPs) on which to develop. In the real world, when land is scarce, the cost of the land goes up dramatically. I mean, really, that goes for any resource that is limited. The more limited the resource, the higher price it demands.

Only in internet-land has a limited resource that is widely used has not been attached to rent-seeking behavior. Honestly, the current price seems (to me, personal opinion) to be very reasonable, considering the low number of IPv4 IP addresses available.

So, considering it took so long to charge for them, unlikely just driven by greed, imho.

[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago

Especially bad for GitHub, which hosts so much software that is really useful on servers. E.g. NixOS has its complete repository there.

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 58 points 1 year ago

I'm going on professional year 24 of clients requiring that IPv6 be deactivated on every device in their network. Whee.

[-] negativenull@negativenull.com 41 points 1 year ago

My current ISP still does not offer IPv6 🤦 🤦 🤦

[-] housepanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com 14 points 1 year ago

Verizon, my ISP, offers IPv6 in my area but the implementation is broken and it ends up being an order of magnitude slower than simply using IPv4 and HE as an IPv6 tunnel broker.

[-] tychosmoose@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

AT&T is the same. And the last time I looked they don't give you enough address space to host your own subnet. You get a /64 instead of a /56. And it's slower than ipv4.

Every few months I try it out, complain and then switch it off.

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, my company totally blocks ipv6 when the VPN is on. Not sure why they're so backward for a tech company.

The same goes for my place of work. It's going to be shit loads of fun when we are forcibly transitioned. I hope before that time I will be doing web development work and kissing my professional career in infrastructure good bye.

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

What's their rationale? Is there one?

[-] dan@upvote.au 8 points 1 year ago

Their network admins are old and don't want to learn new stuff, or their networking equipment is old and they don't want to replace it.

[-] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

IPv6 existed when I was a kid. It is not even remotely new.

[-] dan@upvote.au 3 points 1 year ago

I know, but it wasn't commonly used until IPv4 depletion became a more serious issue.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

I must've said this at least 10 years ago: the more people move to IPv6, the more IPv4 are left free, so the less reason for moving to IPv6.

The "migration" could easily take several more decades.

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

We were talking about it when I was in undergrad.

[-] grue@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but for all we know you went to college thousands of years in the future, Time Lord.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] drwho@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

"Compliance with regulations."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jmanes@beehaw.org 26 points 1 year ago

Thank goodness. Death to IPv4.

[-] TheRealMalc@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago

About 3.70/month. Not great, not terrible

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ox0r@jlai.lu 20 points 1 year ago

"We want more money so fuck you"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] csolisr@communities.azkware.net 19 points 1 year ago

My ISP is still incapable of resolving IPv6 addresses at all. Same goes for several other ISPs in my country that I have tried before that. As of now I need to rent a separate VPS just to have my home server be visible online on a public IPv4 address, and that is with a heavy bandwidth penalization. Can't wait for IPv6 to be generally available in my country at least!

[-] dandroid@dandroid.app 11 points 1 year ago

If my ISP doesn't support IPv6, would I need a proxy or something to access an AWS instance with only an IPv6 address?

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 9 points 1 year ago

A tunnel. I've used these before https://tunnelbroker.net/ and https://www.sixxs.net/main/ probably 10 years ago now. They were pretty good. But of course you need something to act as a router on your network for it to set it up for the whole network. A raspberry pi would be enough or anything running linux. Of course you can probably just set it up on one machine too. I've never done that though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CanadianNomad@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

If they reduced the cost of their internet gateways, I wouldn't use more than 1 IP.. I feel their own pricing leads people to use more IPs than they need.

[-] sammydee@readit.buzz 5 points 1 year ago
[-] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Can anyone explain why migration to IPv6 has been so slow? Just too cheap/lazy to migrate or does it break things or what?

[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

There's a lot of layers of equipment and software that all have to support it, and some companies just aren't willing to replace it all. I'm sure it's exacerbated by how much harder some old code is to work with, because we didn't have the same body of documentation and design concepts that we have today (yes, companies still skimp now, but a lot has changed.

At this point those are all excuses, though. You should have migrated by now.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
153 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37603 readers
453 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS