4 ms·
$0.005 per hour per IP, or $43.8 per year, is expensive. Too expensive.
by neverrroot 3y ago
$0.005 per hour per IP, or $43.8 per year, is expensive. Too expensive.
- wmf 3y agoYes, AWS is buying IPs for ~$50 so either they're only expecting IPv4 to last for 2-3 years (not) or this charge is basically a penalty for people who are bad at networking.
- user6723 3y agowhat is a stupidity tax
- Sayrus 3y agoFortunately, using private IPs behind a NAT Gateway is cheap /s Even for people good at networking but using managed services, public IPs on instance can make sense. IPv6 support also has its own set of issues.
- joshstrange 3y ago> penalty for people who are bad at networking You mean customers? I can't access IPv6-only websites because my ISP doesn't support it. Oh, and I have the best ISP in the area but none of the ISPs here have IPv6 support. If you mean routing multiple servers through one that uses IPv4 so you only have to pay for 1 machine then yeah, I guess I'm bad at networking, that does not sound like something I want to maintain.
- wmf 3y agorouting multiple servers through one that uses IPv4 so you only have to pay for 1 machine This is called a NAT gateway and it's AWS networking 101. If you're not willing to learn how to use AWS then you're going to get ripped off.
- benmmurphy 3y agoNAT gateways were the ripoff before this change :) AWS NAT could be described as paying AWS to give yourself a worse networking experience. which I guess is probably why they've made this change. NAT gateway is very similar to assigning a public IP to your instance except that when you use the NAT gateway you don't have 1:1 private to public ip addresses. AWS public IP is just 1:1 NAT. If you don't want any incoming connections with the public IP then you just don't allow incoming connections in the security groups rules and it's almost identical to AWS NAT. AWS NAT was mostly a disadvantage except if you want to originate traffic from a fixed set of ip addresses and you don't have your own public ip range to allocate from. Of course now with the pricing changes it should be cheaper to use AWS NAT over public IP.
- tehbeard 3y agoHaving looked at the pricing for a nat gateway device on aws for some lambda related networking woes recently... You're getting ripped off still unless you handroll or ansible playbook your own nat gateway.
- runamok 3y agoNat gateways really only hurt if you have fairly high traffic iirc. AWS always dings you on egress traffic in general. In that case this may be preferable: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Instance.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Ins...
- yuppie_scum 3y agoI guarantee your company spent more than that in the past few business days on people talking about the weather while waiting for other people to show up on zoom.
- flangola7 3y agoWhat does that have to do with anything? That doesn't suddenly make the expense go away.
- grepfru_it 3y agoFor reference: I pay roughly $24/year at my colo and that (I thought) is expensive. I had another host which only charged $6.50/year