16 ms·

AWS is estimated to make $400M to $1B with the new IPv4 charge

71 points by atyvr 3y ago

jedberg 3y ago
What's interesting to me is that they always had this cost, but in the past it was always baked into the cost of anything that used a public IP (namely EC2). The prices for IPv4 addresses finally got so high that they had to break it out into a separate charge because otherwise it would be too much to bake into the cost of everything. I also completely believe them when they say they are doing it to force people to be more intentional about their use of public IPv4. And of course it's a great way to get people to move to IPv6, since those are still "free" (in quotes because those prices are still baked into the things that support them).
- jenny91 3y ago
  > And of course it's a great way to get people to move to IPv6, since those are still "free" (in quotes because those prices are still baked into the things that support them). They are basically free because there is no shortage of them.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    The costs to AWS are having to upgrade all their routers and any other equipment that handles IP (including the management cards in each physical host).
    - vel0city 3y ago
      What percentage of their routers were acquired pre-IPv6? S3 wasn't publicly available until 2006, EC2 followed later. Was most enterprise networking equipment in the mid 2000's still without IPv6 support?
    - organsnyder 3y ago
      Surely by now all of their equipment can support IPv6 with at most a firmware upgrade?
    - tormeh 3y ago
      There is no way AWS has any equipment that is not IPv6-ready. These things are replaced about every 5 years or so. I bet it's all software that assumes IPv4, which is arguably worse.
      - zokier 3y ago
        AWS is selling still M4 instances that originally date from 2015, nearly 10 years ago https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/06/introducing-m4-instances-and-lower-amazon-ec2-instance-prices/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/06/introduci...
    - kjs3 3y ago
      AWS is holding onto those routers running something earlier than, what, IOS 12.4 from 2005? And all those servers with iDRAC6s from, what, 2012? Some day people will stop pretending IPv6 support is something that hasn't been ubiquitous in network gear for a decade or more.
      - jedberg 3y ago
        The gear might support it in theory, but may not actually have sufficiently powerful CPUs or enough RAM to actually handle all the traffic. Also there is a bunch of software in between that needs upgrades. If it were easy and straightforward they would have done it years ago. The fact that even today most things AWS don’t support ipv6 tells me that it’s hard.
        kjs3 3y ago
        If it were easy and straightforward they would have done it years ago. You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Neither do I. It might be operational issues. It might be legacy code. It might just be because they've figured not doing it makes them more money or because they think not enough customers are asking for it. Hell, it could be as simple as the right executive thinking "IPv6 is a fad" and roadblocking. But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it"; that's a long ago solved problem. And AWS designs/builds their own networking gear, so they aren't waiting on Cisco or whomever to give them what they need...they would have done it years ago.
        jedberg 3y ago
        > You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth. > But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it"; I never said the hardware doesn't support it. I said the hardware needs upgrades to support it at their scale, which includes software updates to the hardware, as well as the operations around said hardware. It's been a priority for them for years and customers have been asking for years. It's not done because it requires a lot of work and capital. Hopefully the revenue they bring in from charging for IPv4 will help offset the cost of upgrades.
- spott 3y ago
  Did they reduce the cost of everything that it was baked into? Did EC2 instances get cheaper?
  - jedberg 3y ago
    If history is any indication, they would either reduce the cost or just not raise it for a while. AWS is usually pretty good about keeping their profit percent steady and adjusting prices accordingly.
crazygringo 3y ago
> So the approximate value of Amazon's IPv4 estate today is about: $4.6 Billion dollars! > AWS will likely make anywhere between $400 Million and $1 Billion dollars a year with this new IPv4 charge! In other words, it's not clear AWS is "making" anything at all. It might take them over 10 years to pay back the cost of what it would take to acquire them today. Now I assume Amazon is making some level of profit on them, but the article seems to confuse income with profit. "Making" money is generally understood to mean profit, not income.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > Now I'm sure Amazon is making some level of profit on them, but the article seems to confuse income with profit. "Making" money is generally understood to mean profit, not income. Common clickbait tactic, hence avoiding the use of falsifiable terms like net income or profit.
- akerl_ 3y ago
  The IPv4 space almost certainly did not cost them $4.6 billion to acquire. They acquired it much cheaper, and they can’t reasonably sell it because they need it for users. So charging for it when they previously did not nets them revenue they were leaving on the floor before.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    The exact price doesn't matter. The point is, it's wrong to conflate profits with income. You need to subtract costs before you can declare that Amazon "makes" a particular amount of money. You are of course correct that this gives them revenue, my point is that the article is falsely framing this entirely as profit.
    - akerl_ 3y ago
      The costs were already paid. AWS bought that IP space over the past decade. On their financials for 2024, the cost of the IP space they already held is zero.
- 3y ago
digitalsushi 3y ago
Jeez. Eventually someone is going to break down and invent a new IP solution that doubles the number of addresses that we have now. I mean if I were doing it, I'd probably make it more like 1,028 times bigger but maybe it would present as hubris. Addresses would be so plentiful they'd basically be free. And since I am using magic to do all of this, I'd invent it over 20 years ago, so that it'd have been decades since we were still talking about it.
- steve918 3y ago
  So what's taking you so long?!
  - tough 3y ago
    time travel machine mvp is taking a bit more than planned
    - cryptonector 3y ago
      So far it can only go forwards in time [at 1s/s].
- VoodooJuJu 3y ago
  You could do that, and if you did, I think you'd find a lot of success with your new solution, as people the world over would switch to using it. Just make sure you make it as user-friendly & functional as its predecessor and don't stuff a whole bunch of nonsensical half-baked features into it. Otherwise, people may have no choice but to keep using the older solution.
- bastardoperator 3y ago
  IPv5 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx for the win! /s
  - gtvwill 3y ago
    Tbh not sure why the protocol couldn't be upgraded so that xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx and xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx are all accepted. Seems a monumentally shite oversight to not be like that. I mean it's a freaking telephone book address system. Astounding they baked it in just xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and didn't upgrade the protocol at all in the last 20 years (is this just entirely due to profit/asset protecting?). Response was to make a wholly new protocol when they could have just updated the standard and forced suppliers to patch updates? USB backwards compatability that shiz. The fact I can take a modern usb device and plug it in a 1.1 gen port and it still just works. Why the hell isn't ipv4 like that for upgrades? Seriously is there any real technical hurdle why we didn't do it this way?
tiffanyh 3y ago
If Google just banked $3B by extending their server depreciation schedule, imagine how much more profitable AWS would be if they also did the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199841 I wouldn't be surprised if AWS are holding back on implementing this financial change for a future raining day quarter ... because it'd have a bigger impact than IPv4 billing.
bombcar 3y ago
This is the only way IPv6 will ever finally take off; if there's a cost to IPv4.
- _cenw 3y ago
  Money is a terrible discriminator unless you want to advantage the rich. This would fuck up connectivity for everyone that relies on affordable hosting long before it'd force a rusted old enterprise to adopt IPv6. dig github.com AAAA
  - mdaniel 3y ago
    I hear you, and do appreciate your point. But, what other incentive alignment levers are available for corporations than their bottom line? Also, I'm just saying: $ dig gitlab.com. AAAA 2606:4700:90:0:f22e:fbec:5bed:a9b9 I'd bet that's in no small part due to them hosting on GCP Interestingly, it seems AWS is the outlier in the "IPv6 control plane is a fad" stance $ dig admin.googleapis.com. AAAA # as one might expect 2607:f8b0:4005:810::200a $ dig management.azure.com. AAAA # which surprised me 2603:1030:a0b::10 $ dig ec2.amazonaws.com. AAAA # :trollface: $ dig ec2.amazonaws.com. A 209.54.181.135
    - colmmacc 3y ago
      $ dig AAAA ec2.us-east-1.api.aws ... 2600:1f70:8000:a0:41d7:f53b:34f4:5798 The EC2 API is available over IPv6. AWS services that support IPv6 for their APIs use the .aws TLD and the SDKs and CLIs know how to invoke that when IPv6 is preferred. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#dual-stack-endpoints https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#dua... The reason is for backwards compatibility. If IPv6 was simply added to the original names, some clients would instantly shift from using IPv4 to IPv6 and in the process break any customer IAM policy in place that is restricted by IP address. Some day it may be the right call to let that kind of breakage happen, but for now the preference is to ensure that customers are not surprised. See also: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-support.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su...
luhn 3y ago
What's really offensive about this is that AWS does not have good enough IPv6 support for most customers to migrate off of IPv4, even if they want to. ALB uses 2-4 IPv4 addresses. It supports dualstack, but not IPv6-only. CloudFront does not support IPv6 origins. All APIs except for a handful are IPv4-only, so you either need a VPC endpoint (priced per month per AZ per API) or an IPv4 address to communicate with them. It frustrates me that I'll be paying for a bunch of IPv4 addresses that I don't need for any business reason, I only have them because they're necessary within the AWS ecosystem.
- kichik 3y ago
  I find the lack of IPv6 support for their own APIs the most insulting. In my case, I would end up paying more for VPC Endpoints than I would for IPv4 addresses. There is no escaping from this new fee. I really hope they resolve this soon.
- fulafel 3y ago
  It's also pretty ridiculous their reverse proxy (ALB) "dual stack" mode can't serve IPv6 clients unless your backend app server is also IPv6. This is so much worse than anything you'd set up yourself.
  - zokier 3y ago
    That doesn't seem right, for example this reddit thread (yeah, I know) says that ipv6 alb -> ipv4 target should work fine: https://old.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1145bcw/dualstack_alb_with_only_ipv4_targets/ https://old.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1145bcw/dualstack_alb_...
    - fulafel 3y ago
      Like most of the people in the linked reddit thread, I read the docs (and web search results[1] and LLM answers) as requiring v6 behind the ALB too. Not taking the poster's word for it yet but could be worth another look. [1] https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/elb-configure-with-ipv6 https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/elb-configure-with-ipv6
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Related discussion on the ipv4 change announcement 6 months ago: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989798
notwhereyouare 3y ago
article turns into an ad at the end, just a FYI
greatgib 3y ago
What is raging is to know that IP v4 address ranges are provided at no cost to organisations. And even if they still had to acquire some from other organizations at a cost, there certainly don't have to pay a regular fee to keep them. So in the end, they take a public good that is basically free, a lot lot lot of it, and like a hold up they make a lot of money racketeering you monthly because you are too insignificant to be allowed to own your own ips...
- greyface- 3y ago
  This is not true at all, at least in the ARIN service region. * Aside from a very minimal amount of space allocated for v6 transition technologies[1] and from the waitlist[2], organizations do have to pay market rates for IP addresses. * Organizations do need to pay a yearly fee to keep them, which scales with the amount of address space held.[3] * You are not too insignificant to be allowed to own your own IPs - anyone can establish at least 2 peering relationships, ask ARIN for an ASN, and acquire some IPs. [1]: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-3-1-subsequent-allocations-for-transition https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-3-1-subseq... [2]: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#4-1-8-arin-waitlist https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#4-1-8-arin-wai... [3]: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/
planet_1649c 3y ago
Can't they provide an anycast ip's like fly.io does to all their customers. Most of the things are anyhow behind dns entries and i doubt people direct hit IP addresses.
- overstay8930 3y ago
  They do, it's called Global Accelerator

71 points by atyvr 3y ago

What's interesting to me is that they always had this cost, but in the past it was always baked into the cost of anything that used a public IP (namely EC2). The prices for IPv4 addresses finally got so high that they had to break it out into a separate charge because otherwise it would be too much to bake into the cost of everything. I also completely believe them when they say they are doing it to force people to be more intentional about their use of public IPv4. And of course it's a great way to get people to move to IPv6, since those are still "free" (in quotes because those prices are still baked into the things that support them).

jenny91 3y ago
> And of course it's a great way to get people to move to IPv6, since those are still "free" (in quotes because those prices are still baked into the things that support them). They are basically free because there is no shortage of them.
- jedberg 3y ago
  The costs to AWS are having to upgrade all their routers and any other equipment that handles IP (including the management cards in each physical host).
  - vel0city 3y ago
    What percentage of their routers were acquired pre-IPv6? S3 wasn't publicly available until 2006, EC2 followed later. Was most enterprise networking equipment in the mid 2000's still without IPv6 support?
  - organsnyder 3y ago
    Surely by now all of their equipment can support IPv6 with at most a firmware upgrade?
  - tormeh 3y ago
    There is no way AWS has any equipment that is not IPv6-ready. These things are replaced about every 5 years or so. I bet it's all software that assumes IPv4, which is arguably worse.
    - zokier 3y ago
      AWS is selling still M4 instances that originally date from 2015, nearly 10 years ago https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/06/introducing-m4-instances-and-lower-amazon-ec2-instance-prices/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/06/introduci...
  - kjs3 3y ago
    AWS is holding onto those routers running something earlier than, what, IOS 12.4 from 2005? And all those servers with iDRAC6s from, what, 2012? Some day people will stop pretending IPv6 support is something that hasn't been ubiquitous in network gear for a decade or more.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      The gear might support it in theory, but may not actually have sufficiently powerful CPUs or enough RAM to actually handle all the traffic. Also there is a bunch of software in between that needs upgrades. If it were easy and straightforward they would have done it years ago. The fact that even today most things AWS don’t support ipv6 tells me that it’s hard.
      - kjs3 3y ago
        If it were easy and straightforward they would have done it years ago. You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Neither do I. It might be operational issues. It might be legacy code. It might just be because they've figured not doing it makes them more money or because they think not enough customers are asking for it. Hell, it could be as simple as the right executive thinking "IPv6 is a fad" and roadblocking. But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it"; that's a long ago solved problem. And AWS designs/builds their own networking gear, so they aren't waiting on Cisco or whomever to give them what they need...they would have done it years ago.
        jedberg 3y ago
        > You have absolutely no idea what their constraints are or what their IPv6 decision making process is. Yes I do. I've talked to them about it in depth. > But it's not "because the hardware doesn't support it"; I never said the hardware doesn't support it. I said the hardware needs upgrades to support it at their scale, which includes software updates to the hardware, as well as the operations around said hardware. It's been a priority for them for years and customers have been asking for years. It's not done because it requires a lot of work and capital. Hopefully the revenue they bring in from charging for IPv4 will help offset the cost of upgrades.
spott 3y ago
Did they reduce the cost of everything that it was baked into? Did EC2 instances get cheaper?
- jedberg 3y ago
  If history is any indication, they would either reduce the cost or just not raise it for a while. AWS is usually pretty good about keeping their profit percent steady and adjusting prices accordingly.

crazygringo 3y ago

> So the approximate value of Amazon's IPv4 estate today is about: $4.6 Billion dollars! > AWS will likely make anywhere between $400 Million and $1 Billion dollars a year with this new IPv4 charge! In other words, it's not clear AWS is "making" anything at all. It might take them over 10 years to pay back the cost of what it would take to acquire them today. Now I assume Amazon is making some level of profit on them, but the article seems to confuse income with profit. "Making" money is generally understood to mean profit, not income.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> Now I'm sure Amazon is making some level of profit on them, but the article seems to confuse income with profit. "Making" money is generally understood to mean profit, not income. Common clickbait tactic, hence avoiding the use of falsifiable terms like net income or profit.
akerl_ 3y ago
The IPv4 space almost certainly did not cost them $4.6 billion to acquire. They acquired it much cheaper, and they can’t reasonably sell it because they need it for users. So charging for it when they previously did not nets them revenue they were leaving on the floor before.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  The exact price doesn't matter. The point is, it's wrong to conflate profits with income. You need to subtract costs before you can declare that Amazon "makes" a particular amount of money. You are of course correct that this gives them revenue, my point is that the article is falsely framing this entirely as profit.
  - akerl_ 3y ago
    The costs were already paid. AWS bought that IP space over the past decade. On their financials for 2024, the cost of the IP space they already held is zero.
3y ago

digitalsushi 3y ago

Jeez. Eventually someone is going to break down and invent a new IP solution that doubles the number of addresses that we have now. I mean if I were doing it, I'd probably make it more like 1,028 times bigger but maybe it would present as hubris. Addresses would be so plentiful they'd basically be free. And since I am using magic to do all of this, I'd invent it over 20 years ago, so that it'd have been decades since we were still talking about it.

steve918 3y ago
So what's taking you so long?!
- tough 3y ago
  time travel machine mvp is taking a bit more than planned
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    So far it can only go forwards in time [at 1s/s].
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
You could do that, and if you did, I think you'd find a lot of success with your new solution, as people the world over would switch to using it. Just make sure you make it as user-friendly & functional as its predecessor and don't stuff a whole bunch of nonsensical half-baked features into it. Otherwise, people may have no choice but to keep using the older solution.
bastardoperator 3y ago
IPv5 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx for the win! /s
- gtvwill 3y ago
  Tbh not sure why the protocol couldn't be upgraded so that xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx and xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx are all accepted. Seems a monumentally shite oversight to not be like that. I mean it's a freaking telephone book address system. Astounding they baked it in just xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and didn't upgrade the protocol at all in the last 20 years (is this just entirely due to profit/asset protecting?). Response was to make a wholly new protocol when they could have just updated the standard and forced suppliers to patch updates? USB backwards compatability that shiz. The fact I can take a modern usb device and plug it in a 1.1 gen port and it still just works. Why the hell isn't ipv4 like that for upgrades? Seriously is there any real technical hurdle why we didn't do it this way?

tiffanyh 3y ago

If Google just banked $3B by extending their server depreciation schedule, imagine how much more profitable AWS would be if they also did the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39199841 I wouldn't be surprised if AWS are holding back on implementing this financial change for a future raining day quarter ... because it'd have a bigger impact than IPv4 billing.

bombcar 3y ago

This is the only way IPv6 will ever finally take off; if there's a cost to IPv4.

_cenw 3y ago
Money is a terrible discriminator unless you want to advantage the rich. This would fuck up connectivity for everyone that relies on affordable hosting long before it'd force a rusted old enterprise to adopt IPv6. dig github.com AAAA
- mdaniel 3y ago
  I hear you, and do appreciate your point. But, what other incentive alignment levers are available for corporations than their bottom line? Also, I'm just saying: $ dig gitlab.com. AAAA 2606:4700:90:0:f22e:fbec:5bed:a9b9 I'd bet that's in no small part due to them hosting on GCP Interestingly, it seems AWS is the outlier in the "IPv6 control plane is a fad" stance $ dig admin.googleapis.com. AAAA # as one might expect 2607:f8b0:4005:810::200a $ dig management.azure.com. AAAA # which surprised me 2603:1030:a0b::10 $ dig ec2.amazonaws.com. AAAA # :trollface: $ dig ec2.amazonaws.com. A 209.54.181.135
  - colmmacc 3y ago
    $ dig AAAA ec2.us-east-1.api.aws ... 2600:1f70:8000:a0:41d7:f53b:34f4:5798 The EC2 API is available over IPv6. AWS services that support IPv6 for their APIs use the .aws TLD and the SDKs and CLIs know how to invoke that when IPv6 is preferred. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#dual-stack-endpoints https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#dua... The reason is for backwards compatibility. If IPv6 was simply added to the original names, some clients would instantly shift from using IPv4 to IPv6 and in the process break any customer IAM policy in place that is restricted by IP address. Some day it may be the right call to let that kind of breakage happen, but for now the preference is to ensure that customers are not surprised. See also: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-support.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su...

luhn 3y ago

What's really offensive about this is that AWS does not have good enough IPv6 support for most customers to migrate off of IPv4, even if they want to. ALB uses 2-4 IPv4 addresses. It supports dualstack, but not IPv6-only. CloudFront does not support IPv6 origins. All APIs except for a handful are IPv4-only, so you either need a VPC endpoint (priced per month per AZ per API) or an IPv4 address to communicate with them. It frustrates me that I'll be paying for a bunch of IPv4 addresses that I don't need for any business reason, I only have them because they're necessary within the AWS ecosystem.

kichik 3y ago
I find the lack of IPv6 support for their own APIs the most insulting. In my case, I would end up paying more for VPC Endpoints than I would for IPv4 addresses. There is no escaping from this new fee. I really hope they resolve this soon.
fulafel 3y ago
It's also pretty ridiculous their reverse proxy (ALB) "dual stack" mode can't serve IPv6 clients unless your backend app server is also IPv6. This is so much worse than anything you'd set up yourself.
- zokier 3y ago
  That doesn't seem right, for example this reddit thread (yeah, I know) says that ipv6 alb -> ipv4 target should work fine: https://old.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1145bcw/dualstack_alb_with_only_ipv4_targets/ https://old.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/1145bcw/dualstack_alb_...
  - fulafel 3y ago
    Like most of the people in the linked reddit thread, I read the docs (and web search results[1] and LLM answers) as requiring v6 behind the ALB too. Not taking the poster's word for it yet but could be worth another look. [1] https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/elb-configure-with-ipv6 https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/elb-configure-with-ipv6

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Related discussion on the ipv4 change announcement 6 months ago: AWS to begin charging for public IPv4 addresses https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989798

notwhereyouare 3y ago

article turns into an ad at the end, just a FYI

greatgib 3y ago

What is raging is to know that IP v4 address ranges are provided at no cost to organisations. And even if they still had to acquire some from other organizations at a cost, there certainly don't have to pay a regular fee to keep them. So in the end, they take a public good that is basically free, a lot lot lot of it, and like a hold up they make a lot of money racketeering you monthly because you are too insignificant to be allowed to own your own ips...

greyface- 3y ago
This is not true at all, at least in the ARIN service region. * Aside from a very minimal amount of space allocated for v6 transition technologies[1] and from the waitlist[2], organizations do have to pay market rates for IP addresses. * Organizations do need to pay a yearly fee to keep them, which scales with the amount of address space held.[3] * You are not too insignificant to be allowed to own your own IPs - anyone can establish at least 2 peering relationships, ask ARIN for an ASN, and acquire some IPs. [1]: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-3-1-subsequent-allocations-for-transition https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-3-1-subseq... [2]: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#4-1-8-arin-waitlist https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#4-1-8-arin-wai... [3]: https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/ https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/

planet_1649c 3y ago

Can't they provide an anycast ip's like fly.io does to all their customers. Most of the things are anyhow behind dns entries and i doubt people direct hit IP addresses.

overstay8930 3y ago
They do, it's called Global Accelerator