Technology

37739 readers

500 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

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

137

AWS: IPv4 addresses cost too much, so you’re going to pay (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 year ago by pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dan@upvote.au 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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) (1 children)

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.

[–] housepanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed! Also smaller packet sizes.

[–] magnus@lemmy.ahall.se 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago

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