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.

  • flip@lemmy.nbsp.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    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.

    • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Magnus Åhall@lemmy.ahall.se
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          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.

            • Magnus Åhall@lemmy.ahall.se
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I guess that means able to access services on the Internet over IPv6, not me being able to get a /64 and providing services myself to others.

              Sort of ok for phones I guess, although not as great if someone doesn’t have access to fiber and have to use a mobile link in a residential environment.

              Bahnhof actually just provides NAT:ed fiber connections as well as default, but will issue a public, unique IP if asked (at no additional cost).

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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.

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Other providers will start charging more, the US and Europe have ALL ipv4 allocated now. So, yes the cost of a scarce resource goes… Up

        Most of the big websites are on ipv6. Twitter isn’t (but is that anyone’s loss?). I think the only way we can all make sure the stragglers move to ipv6 is if we all leave an ISP that doesn’t offer it.

        After all these years it really should be the dominant stack.

          • r00ty@kbin.life
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a really stupid thing for that ISP to do. It doesn’t make sense. IPv6 costs them virtually nothing, yes the real IP costs them. But they’re stretching out the time they need to provide it by putting conditions behind the ipv6 allocation.

            Look up in this thread and just get an ipv6 tunnel, I used tunnels for 5 years between 2011 and 2015, until my ISP provided IPv6. While bigger businesses aren’t going to go ipv6 only any time soon, I think smaller server operators might just do that to save money. When the cost of the IP becomes a larger part of the cost of the service.

      • TheRealMalc@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. I pay like 3.50 for my lightsail instance that I host my pihole on. Are they really going to double that for my public ipv4?

        • TheRealMalc@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m running the smallest linux instance in US West 2, I believe. 512mb RAM, 1 core processor. More than enough for pihole+wiregurd

  • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    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!

      • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, that’s where my scenario dies - I’m behind CGNAT (not even a dynamic IP with direct access to the Internet), and the only providers that do have a fixed IP available only provide the service to commercial clients - which is to say, I’m expected to pay hundreds of dollars a month for the privilege. Guess I’ll keep needing a VPS for the time being!

    • cnqr@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not the Amazon approach. Amazon tries to make money on the volume, not on the margins.

      IPv4 is starting to actually cost. To everyone.

  • Dandroid@dandroid.app
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    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?

  • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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?