5 ms·

I completely agree. It’s odd they would announce charging for dedicated IPv4 while not having a free shared egress solution (unless I’m misunderstanding). I wo

by pnpnp 3y ago

I completely agree. It’s odd they would announce charging for dedicated IPv4 while not having a free shared egress solution (unless I’m misunderstanding). I would expect them to reduce NAT pricing in the long run, but who knows.

ransackdev 3y ago
I think that as a business and given the fact they are now charging for a previously free service (public IPs), offering a now paid service as free would nullify the reasons for doing what they are doing. They don't owe anyone anything for free.
- inopinatus 3y ago
  That doesn't follow, because the reason is that IP addresses are scarce.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    That’s not anything new. They’ve been scarce for a decade and they’ve footed the bill this long so why change it now other then someone noticed the opportunity
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  > They don't owe anyone anything for free. I always love this comments. We pay them literally hundreds of thousands a year.
  - _sojh 3y ago
    Look I’m the last one that will bang the capitalism, consume, spend, drum, but nothing is ever free. You want a free nat box? Your managed database cluster just got a fraction of a fraction of a cent more expensive every hour. You would never get it for free even if they billed it as such. They wouldn’t be the biggest company in the world if they were in the habit of using their profits for your bills instead of the shareholder’s dividends. This is a business, not a family style steak house.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SteveNuts 3y ago
I'm shocked this isn't a feature of a VPC out of the box (shared internet bound traffic). You should only need a NAT gateway if you want the traffic to come out of a single set of external IPs that you control. Almost all of my use cases I could easily ride out to the internet through a shared pipe (apt updates and such) and don't care whatsoever what IP that exits the AWS network from, since I'm not applying firewall rules or anything.
- patmcc 3y ago
  >>> and don't care whatsoever what IP that exits the AWS network from You'll start to care pretty quickly if it's the same IP as a bad actor that's blocked everywhere.
- ishanjain28 3y ago
  So for this, Run your apps in public subnets that are attached to IGW.
  - zeroimpl 3y ago
    Which then requires each app to have a public IP, priced at $44/year starting soon

by pnpnp 3y ago

ransackdev 3y ago

I think that as a business and given the fact they are now charging for a previously free service (public IPs), offering a now paid service as free would nullify the reasons for doing what they are doing. They don't owe anyone anything for free.

inopinatus 3y ago
That doesn't follow, because the reason is that IP addresses are scarce.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  That’s not anything new. They’ve been scarce for a decade and they’ve footed the bill this long so why change it now other then someone noticed the opportunity
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Ensorceled 3y ago
> They don't owe anyone anything for free. I always love this comments. We pay them literally hundreds of thousands a year.
- _sojh 3y ago
  Look I’m the last one that will bang the capitalism, consume, spend, drum, but nothing is ever free. You want a free nat box? Your managed database cluster just got a fraction of a fraction of a cent more expensive every hour. You would never get it for free even if they billed it as such. They wouldn’t be the biggest company in the world if they were in the habit of using their profits for your bills instead of the shareholder’s dividends. This is a business, not a family style steak house.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SteveNuts 3y ago

I'm shocked this isn't a feature of a VPC out of the box (shared internet bound traffic). You should only need a NAT gateway if you want the traffic to come out of a single set of external IPs that you control. Almost all of my use cases I could easily ride out to the internet through a shared pipe (apt updates and such) and don't care whatsoever what IP that exits the AWS network from, since I'm not applying firewall rules or anything.

patmcc 3y ago
>>> and don't care whatsoever what IP that exits the AWS network from You'll start to care pretty quickly if it's the same IP as a bad actor that's blocked everywhere.
ishanjain28 3y ago
So for this, Run your apps in public subnets that are attached to IGW.
- zeroimpl 3y ago
  Which then requires each app to have a public IP, priced at $44/year starting soon