4 ms·

Hetzner makes you pay 1 € per IPv4, while IPv6 is free. I'd gladly get rid of all IPv4's given that I have many servers.

• saltyoldman 6mo ago
  I don't even know why clouds offer public IP addresses. In my opinion all clouds should only have a gateway that routes via host header for millions of customers. IPv4 should be a special priv for special situations at a higher price. Then these clouds could own maybe 20 IPs total instead of millions.
  • seabrookmx 6mo ago
    > host header Not all workloads are HTTP. > gateway .. for millions of customers That's basically what an AWS ALB is. It's not provisioning bespoke infrastructure when you create it.. it's just a routing rule in their shared infra. If Amazon wanted, they could easily have shared IP's but the cost of an IPv4 isn't so great that this approach has been warranted yet, clearly.
    • saltyoldman 6mo ago
      Yeah I get all that, but the only two connection types that are useful are http/s/ and ssh. SSH can have work-arounds like the way google does. Let's let the people that want non http workloads pay more.
      • Dagger2 6mo ago
        Remember that, at one stage, the only two types that were useful were FTP and telnet. HTTP and SSH didn't even exist. Let's not strangle the next big thing that doesn't exist yet before it can even be born, yeah?
        • saltyoldman 6mo ago
          The next big thing can happen on IPv6
          • Dagger2 6mo ago
            But only if you don't hide everybody away behind routers that require HTTP and a host header.
  • kstrauser 6mo ago
    > In my opinion all clouds should only have a gateway that routes via host header for millions of customers. This is incompatible with TCP/IP networking. In TCP connections, (sender_address, sender_port, receiver_address, receiver_port) is a unique combination. Those numbers together uniquely identify the sender talking to the receiver. For a public webserver: * sender_address is the client machine's IP address * sender_port is a random number from 0..65535 (not quite, but let's pretend) * receiver_address is the webserver's IP address * receiver_port is 443 That means it'd be impossible for one client IP to be connected to one server IP more than 65535 times. Sounds like a lot, right? * sender_address is the outbound NAT at an office with 10,000 employees Now each user can have at most 6.5 connections on average to the same webserver. That's probably not an issue, as long as the site isn't a major news org and nothing critical is happening. Now given your scheme: * receiver_address is the gateway shared by 10000 websites Now each user can have at most 6.5 connections to all of those 10000 websites combined, at once, total, period. Or put another way, 100,000,000 client/website combos would have to fit into the same 65535 possible sender_ports. Hope you don't plan on checking your webmail and buying airline tickets at the same time.
    • GoblinSlayer 6mo ago
      If you multiply by 20 shared addresses, it would be 130 connections to 200000 websites.
    • saltyoldman 6mo ago
      This is actually a good point. I guess 20 IPs per cloud infra company is probably too few. But maybe these cloud companies can have 20k IPs instead of 2 million?
• andix 6mo ago
  But their VLANs still only support ipv4, which makes it hard to route external ipv6 traffic through the VLANs. You need tunnels.
• Avamander 6mo ago
  OVH does the same, but only gives you a /128. Which is ridiculously shitty of them.
  • reddalo 6mo ago
    I find the whole OVH web control panel atrocious. It's so buggy I couldn't even have my account deleted, not even after contacting their customer support (they just told me to fix it myself using their APIs...).