Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


AWS goes brrrr....
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
«1

Comments

  • So sad ipv6 still yet fully adopt worldwide.

  • DataIdeas-JoshDataIdeas-Josh Member, Patron Provider

    I had seen they were charging $3.50/IP

    https://brrr.money/

    Thanked by 1niranjan
  • mustafamw3mustafamw3 Member, Host Rep

  • So this only applies to unattached elastic IPs?

  • DataIdeas-JoshDataIdeas-Josh Member, Patron Provider

    @listerine90 said:
    So this only applies to unattached elastic IPs?

    Thats my understanding.

  • avelineaveline Member, Patron Provider

    @listerine90 said:
    So this only applies to unattached elastic IPs?

    This was only applied to idle Elastic IP addresses, and now Elastic IP addresses in use are also charged.

    https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address-charge-public-ip-insights/

  • emghemgh Member

    Good

    I’m sure there’s a lot of companies who take up way more compared to what they actually need since optimizing it until now didn’t make sense to do

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @emgh said:
    Good

    I’m sure there’s a lot of companies who take up way more compared to what they actually need since optimizing it until now didn’t make sense to do

    Amazon isn’t going to give the ips back to the registries. They’re still buying /16s almost daily.

    Francisco

  • emghemgh Member

    @Francisco said:

    @emgh said:
    Good

    I’m sure there’s a lot of companies who take up way more compared to what they actually need since optimizing it until now didn’t make sense to do

    Amazon isn’t going to give the ips back to the registries. They’re still buying /16s almost daily.

    Francisco

    Well, I'd do too, they're growing

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep

    @Francisco said:

    @emgh said:
    Good

    I’m sure there’s a lot of companies who take up way more compared to what they actually need since optimizing it until now didn’t make sense to do

    Amazon isn’t going to give the ips back to the registries. They’re still buying /16s almost daily.

    Francisco

    At that rate, they'll own the entire IPv4 address space in around 170 yrs.

    Thanked by 1Hotmarer
  • darkimmortaldarkimmortal Member
    edited July 2023

    Shit news for the low end AWS users, this more than doubles the price of my t4g.nano box

  • ArkasArkas Moderator

    I guess it makes sense, but it still sucks :neutral:

  • xmsxms Member

    @darkimmortal said:
    Shit news for the low end AWS users, this more than doubles the price of my t4g.nano box

    You can go IPv6 only and remove the IPv4 tax.

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    Title suggests @labze HostBrr has acquired AWS.

  • rcy026rcy026 Member

    @randvegeta said:

    At that rate, they'll own the entire IPv4 address space in around 170 yrs.

    At the rate some people seem to be adopting ipv6, some of them will probably still be using ipv4 by then.

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep

    @rcy026 said:

    @randvegeta said:

    At that rate, they'll own the entire IPv4 address space in around 170 yrs.

    At the rate some people seem to be adopting ipv6, some of them will probably still be using ipv4 by then.

    IPv4 will be in use until all the network admins of today are dead. The only way we are ever moving to IPv6 is if new admins are ONLY taught about IPv6 and be completely useless when it comes to IPv4.

    Thanked by 1ntlx
  • @randvegeta said:

    @Francisco said:

    @emgh said:
    Good

    I’m sure there’s a lot of companies who take up way more compared to what they actually need since optimizing it until now didn’t make sense to do

    Amazon isn’t going to give the ips back to the registries. They’re still buying /16s almost daily.

    Francisco

    At that rate, they'll own the entire IPv4 address space in around 170 yrs.

    170 years later…

    Amazon: presenting IPv4 exclusively to prime members!

  • ArkasArkas Moderator

    @randvegeta said: The only way we are ever moving to IPv6 is if new admins are ONLY taught about IPv6 and be completely useless when it comes to IPv4.

    That will never happen, unfortunately.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • darkimmortaldarkimmortal Member
    edited July 2023

    @xms said:

    @darkimmortal said:
    Shit news for the low end AWS users, this more than doubles the price of my t4g.nano box

    You can go IPv6 only and remove the IPv4 tax.

    Sadly it’s an email server*, probably going to be one of the last sectors to go IPv6

    (*One of the few use cases where it’s worth a hobbyist paying AWS tax!)

    Thanked by 1xms
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @randvegeta said:

    @Francisco said:

    @emgh said:
    Good

    I’m sure there’s a lot of companies who take up way more compared to what they actually need since optimizing it until now didn’t make sense to do

    Amazon isn’t going to give the ips back to the registries. They’re still buying /16s almost daily.

    Francisco

    At that rate, they'll own the entire IPv4 address space in around 170 yrs.

    There's times they buy 20 - 30 in a single day. The ARIN 'issuing' mailing list is usually flooded with their stuff.

    Francisco

  • @SirFoxy said:

    @randvegeta said:

    @Francisco said:

    @emgh said:
    Good

    I’m sure there’s a lot of companies who take up way more compared to what they actually need since optimizing it until now didn’t make sense to do

    Amazon isn’t going to give the ips back to the registries. They’re still buying /16s almost daily.

    Francisco

    At that rate, they'll own the entire IPv4 address space in around 170 yrs.

    170 years later…

    Amazon: presenting IPv4 exclusively to prime members!

    No need to wait for 170 years, it will be sooner...

    Thanked by 1SirFoxy
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @randvegeta said: IPv4 will be in use until all the network admins of today are dead. The only way we are ever moving to IPv6 is if new admins are ONLY taught about IPv6 and be completely useless when it comes to IPv4.

    I made a comment to a friend some years ago "V4 will still be around, and in use, long after we're in the ground."

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • labzelabze Member, Patron Provider
    edited July 2023

    @yoursunny said:
    Title suggests @labze HostBrr has acquired AWS.

    Yes, our recent success has allowed us to aquire AWS. Press release upcoming!

    However, when we go Brr it is for the clients benefit, not the wallet :)

    Thanked by 1plumberg
  • @jsg has made an argument about the impracticality of IPv6 due to 128bit routing tables or something along those lines.

    With all the growth in hardware capabilities since then to those limitations still apply?

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @k9banger02 said: @jsg has made an argument about the impracticality of IPv6 due to 128bit routing tables or something along those lines.

    Yeah, the "they should have ued 64-bit addresses instead" argument was all the rage.

    But they didn't. So it's irrelevant. And really, changing something this fundamental is such a hassle that erring on the side of the bigger address space was probably wise.

    Thanked by 2rm_ Maounique
  • rm_rm_ IPv6 Advocate, Veteran

    @raindog308 "they should just have added a byte or two to the IPv4 address, but kept all the backward compatibility." :#

    Thanked by 1xms
  • LeviLevi Member

    Why not use IPv9 like 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 why the hassle with ugpy IPv6. So yesterday...

    Thanked by 2yoursunny Otus9051
  • @raindog308 said:

    @k9banger02 said: @jsg has made an argument about the impracticality of IPv6 due to 128bit routing tables or something along those lines.

    Yeah, the "they should have ued 64-bit addresses instead" argument was all the rage.

    But they didn't. So it's irrelevant. And really, changing something this fundamental is such a hassle that erring on the side of the bigger address space was probably wise.

    His argument is that the hardware difficulties make it impractical and it will still be easier to switch to a more compact standard if hardware providers and major service providers with enough clout switch to it.

    I am not familiar with the hardware side of this field, talking about TCAMs and all that, but does his argument make sense?

    How soon does the crossover point arrive where for ISPs and end users to switching to IPv6 becomes a superior and way easier/convenient than continuing to hoard IPv4 and combining with NAT, CGNAT etc?

    All the signs indicate that it won't be soon.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @rm_ said: @raindog308 "they should just have added a byte or two to the IPv4 address, but kept all the backward compatibility."

    Yeah, lack of backwards compatibility was the IPv6 design's biggest fumble.

  • rm_rm_ IPv6 Advocate, Veteran
    edited July 2023

    @raindog308 said: Yeah, lack of backwards compatibility was the IPv6 design's biggest fumble.

    I thought it was clear I was sarcastic? It was not possible to keep any backwards compatibility and have a decent long-term design at the same time. Could maybe cobble together some IPv4.11-for-Workgroups with ugly hacks like reusing parts of the "port" range for address and in turn have less ports and so on, but luckily that's not what we got in the end.

    Thanked by 2xms maverickp
Sign In or Register to comment.