Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 09, @12:37PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

AWS could rake in between $400 million and $1 billion a year from charging customers for public IPv4 addresses while migration to IPv6 remains slow.

The cloud computing kingpin signaled last year that it would start charging customers for public IPv4 addresses from February 1, as covered by The Register at the time.

AWS cited increasing scarcity and claimed the cost to acquire a single public IPv4 address for customer use had risen more than 300 percent over the past few years.

Fortunately, the charge is hardly ruinous – $0.005 (half a cent) per IP address per hour, which equates to a total cost of $43.80 per year for each public IPv4 address you have – excluding any IP addresses that you might own and opt to bring to AWS using Amazon's BYOIP (Bring Your Own IP) service.

However a technologist has done the calculations and estimated that across all users, this will add up to a sum of between $400 million and $1 billion a year for AWS. Not bad for something that was being offered completely free just a few days ago (and is still offered for 750 hours a month at no cost in the AWS free tier).

The source of the billion-dollar claim is Andree Toonk, founder and CEO of network services biz Border0, who is presumably trying to generate business for his own company.

Toonk used Amazon's own IP address range data to estimate that the cloud colossus has at least 131,932,752 IPv4 addresses. Based on the average price for an IPv4 address being about $35 at the time of writing, this means that AWS is sitting on about $4.6 billion, should it wish to divest itself of them.

He also used a script to ping all of the IPv4 addresses in order to gauge how many were "alive" within the AWS network and came up with an answer of about 6 million. But many instances on AWS will have a security policy to not respond to a ping packet, so the actual number of active IPv4 addresses could be double that.

Even with just those six million addresses, that's $262.8 million AWS will earn from charging for IPv4 in a year.

He forecast the headline $400 million to $1 billion figure by projecting a "conservative" estimate that between 10 percent and 30 percent of the IPv4 addresses (approximately 7.9 million) published in the AWS JSON are used for a year.

We asked AWS if it recognized any of these figures, and what the company itself estimated it would earn from charging customers for public IPv4 addresses, but it declined to answer, instead referring us to its original blog post disclosing the charges.

The general feeling among industry experts is that this is fair game, and customers should make plans to migrate to IPv6 if they don't like it – assuming their applications allow this, of course.

[...] "My view is that AWS has been smart in buying up IPv4 addresses, and this is a way for it to cash in until IPv6 adoption makes IPv4 redundant. It's just that organizations are not rushing to move to IPv6," he said.

Previously: AWS to Charge Customers for Public IPv4 Addresses From 2024


Original Submission

Related Stories

AWS to Charge Customers for Public IPv4 Addresses From 2024 19 comments

AWS to charge customers for public IPv4 addresses from 2024:

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.

It is now four years since we officially ran out of IPv4 ranges to allocate, and since then, those wanting a new public IPv4 address have had to rely on address ranges being recovered, either from from organizations that close down or those that return addresses they no longer require as they migrate to IPv6.

If Amazon's cloud division is to be believed, the difficulty in obtaining public IPv4 addresses has seen the cost of acquiring a single address rise by more than 300 percent over the past five years, and as we all know, the business is a little short of cash at the moment, so is having to pass these costs on to users.

"This change reflects our own costs and is also intended to encourage you to be a bit more frugal with your use of public IPv4 addresses and to think about accelerating your adoption of IPv6 as a modernization and conservation measure," writes AWS Chief Evangelist Jeff Barr, on the company news blog.

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 apparently apply whether the address is attached to a service or not, and like many AWS charges, appear inconsequential at first glance but can mount up over time if a customer is using many of them.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 09, @12:54PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 09, @12:54PM (#1343709)

    What else is there to say? They have altered the deal, pray that they don't alter it so much that movement to another provider, or recoding for IPv6 doesn't become more attractive...

    In the meantime, the flow of profits shifts, the stock markets adjust, and in the big picture it is a zero sum game, but the people who profit from changes get a brief advantage over the people who profit from stability.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 09, @03:47PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) on Friday February 09, @03:47PM (#1343733) Journal

      The University I work for landed some chunks of IPv4 addresses fairly early on. That has probably paid them dividends in the long run. Better to have a few too many IP addresses than end up having to pay someone exorbitant prices to rent them.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 10, @01:39AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 10, @01:39AM (#1343798)

        Better still to update to use IP6, but sometimes that takes some insight and skill, which in reality can cost more than the Amazon rental rates.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 09, @04:21PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09, @04:21PM (#1343741) Journal

      At least they are calling it IPv4 rentals rather than saying you can own an IPv4 address. Just as you can "own" a streaming movie in the cloud.

      --
      People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Friday February 09, @01:27PM (16 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09, @01:27PM (#1343712) Journal

    while migration to IPv6 remains slow.

    But why is migration so slow in the USA? Certainly here in France (and as far as I can tell most if not all of western Europe) my ISP gives me a IPv6 but does not give me an IPv4. My OS has been IPv6 capable for at least 6 years. Even this site has been using IPv6 since that time. My router was already preset to use IPv6 when I purchased it. My internal home network uses it too. Whois copes with my IPv6 address no problem.

    IPv6 was introduced about 12 years ago - what is the reason for the slow uptake? There must be a reason for the reluctance in some countries but I cannot think what it could be. I am still on ADSL over copper but while I wait for fibre to reach my rural location everything else is as up-to-date as it can be.

    --
    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by fliptop on Friday February 09, @01:58PM (2 children)

      by fliptop (1666) on Friday February 09, @01:58PM (#1343718) Journal

      But why is migration so slow in the USA?

      Probably b/c we hate the metric system.

      --
      Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 09, @03:12PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 09, @03:12PM (#1343726)

        Everybody hates change.

        USAians think they are so bigly and power having that they don't have to change (and, secretly they are afraid they will be bad at the new thing).

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by fliptop on Friday February 09, @04:23PM

          by fliptop (1666) on Friday February 09, @04:23PM (#1343742) Journal

          USAians think they are so bigly and power having that they don't have to change

          That's right, why mess w/ perfection?

          --
          Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Freeman on Friday February 09, @03:57PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) on Friday February 09, @03:57PM (#1343735) Journal

      People is the reason. People switched from tape to CD in a heartbeat, because tape sucked. People switched from VHS to DVD in a heartbeat, because VHS sucked. The reason for switching to IPv6 is essentially, because we've run out of IPv4 addresses to hand out. There are some technical benefits, but there's also some technical complications. Which means that we're stuck with IPv4 for another 10-20 years, probably. Eventually, maybe everyone will have switched over to IPv6 and we can deep-six IPv4. I don't expect that to happen any time in the near future.

      https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption [google.com]

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeRandomGeek on Friday February 09, @05:59PM

        by SomeRandomGeek (856) on Friday February 09, @05:59PM (#1343750)

        There are some technical benefits, but there's also some technical complications.

        That is being really generous to IPv6. Everything works with IPv4. Most things work pretty well with IPv6. It has nothing to do with the protocols themselves, and everything to do with mountains of existing codebase that were written and tested with IPv4, and then later refitted to IPv6 by the lowest bidder.
        Why would anyone volunteer to deal with IPv6 issues, when they can just completely avoid them by getting a few public IPv4 addresses and running pure IPv4 on their private network? At a cost of $43.80/year per public IP, that is way cheaper than the engineering cost of diagnosing even one subtle compatibility bug.

    • (Score: 2) by stormreaver on Friday February 09, @05:10PM (2 children)

      by stormreaver (5101) on Friday February 09, @05:10PM (#1343745)

      But why is migration so slow in the USA?

      This article is the answer to your question. ISP's have a choice: make more money by charging extra for the scarce resource that is IPv4, or make nothing by giving away plentiful IPv6 addresses.

      • (Score: 2) by r1348 on Saturday February 10, @10:12PM (1 child)

        by r1348 (5988) on Saturday February 10, @10:12PM (#1343909)

        AWS is not an ISP.

        • (Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday February 11, @01:07AM

          by stormreaver (5101) on Sunday February 11, @01:07AM (#1343923)

          AWS is not an ISP.

          My answer was a broader generalization about ISP's.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday February 09, @06:03PM

      by VLM (445) on Friday February 09, @06:03PM (#1343751)

      But why is migration so slow in the USA?

      My IPv6 tunnel providers all shut down or became a PITA years ago, and I only got my first DOCSIS 3 cablemodem last summer.

      The good part about spearheading the rollout of a new tech is you get the cool stuff early. We had great cablemodems in the 90s, unlike some countries. The bad part about spearheading the rollout of a new tech is you'll tend to sit on old stuff forever and if the old stuff pragmatically works "well enough" then you're stuck with it for a very long time.

    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday February 09, @06:59PM (6 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Friday February 09, @06:59PM (#1343762) Journal

      my ISP gives me a IPv6 but does not give me an IPv4.

      How do you access an IPv4-only website?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday February 09, @08:05PM (5 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09, @08:05PM (#1343772) Journal
        If I specify an IPv4 destination address it goes to Paris where it appears I am given an IPv4 before it goes on to its destination. I suppose it is the same in reverse. It seems that Orange.fr manage all that and I am just IPv6.
        --
        I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday February 09, @09:56PM (4 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday February 09, @09:56PM (#1343776) Journal

          It would seem that you are behind some kind of carrier-grade NAT.

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday February 10, @12:44AM (1 child)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 10, @12:44AM (#1343796) Journal

            Except that if I want to go to another IPv6 address is doesn't happen.

            --
            I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday February 12, @07:53PM

              by Whoever (4524) on Monday February 12, @07:53PM (#1344133) Journal

              The NAT might only be applied to IPv4 addresses.

          • (Score: 2) by rleigh on Saturday February 10, @11:09AM (1 child)

            by rleigh (4887) on Saturday February 10, @11:09AM (#1343837) Homepage

            More likely to be DNS64+NAT64. If the parent does a DNS lookup of an IPv4 site, they should see the IPv6-mapped IPv4 address. So from the point of view of the user, everything is all native IPv6 and it's proxied to IPv4 at the edge when necessary.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10, @12:04PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10, @12:04PM (#1343839)

              That seems to describe exactly what I am seeing. It is only by doing a traceroute that I see an extra hop to (usually) Paris. But to be honest it is not something that I have looked into very much - it just works. As I am still relying on ADSL over copper (about 2Mbits) the extra hop makes no recognisable difference.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Friday February 09, @02:44PM (6 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09, @02:44PM (#1343720) Journal

    I'm surprised that charging for IPv4 addresses didn't happen back in the twenty-teen years.

    The Mayans knew that we would run out of IPv4 addresses in 2012 and they nailed it. Their calendar ended at 2012 because they knew this was coming.

    At that point, it was a buy 'em, collect 'em, and trade blocks of IPv4 addresses for fun and profit.

    It was eventually bound to come to this. Charging for IPv4 addresses. Sadfully they are not manufacturing any more IPv4 addresses.

    Hopefully charging for them will become a popular thing accelerating the move to IPv6.

    Clue: IPv6 is NOT just a wider IPv4 and you MUST NOT think of it that way. It is a different network. Your computer can be connected to both networks at the same time. But IPv6 is a different network. A much more gooder network. But it will sadly end up with ads.

    --
    People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.
    • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Friday February 09, @03:12PM (5 children)

      by shrewdsheep (5215) on Friday February 09, @03:12PM (#1343725)

      But IPv6 is a different network. A much more gooder network.

      Care to elaborate? IMO IPv6 should have just been a wider address range (and 64bit would have been enough for everyone). What of the rest is not unnecessary complexity?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 09, @03:15PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 09, @03:15PM (#1343727)

        >What of the rest is not unnecessary complexity?

        You weren't in the standard harmonization meetings. Each and every bit of that complexity was necessary to get enough agreement to approve the standard.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Friday February 09, @06:28PM (1 child)

          by VLM (445) on Friday February 09, @06:28PM (#1343754)

          Some of it is age. IPv6 is many decades old so stuff we did in the 90s is long obsolete but is technically part of the "new" old ipv6.

          There's the old (pre Y2K) dns record type A6 vs modern (post Y2K) AAAA records. I actually set up my first ipv6 network's DNS using A6 recs because thats just what we did in those days. IIRC A6 had some wild complicated scheme to split the network and host addresses so you could re-ip to a new LAN subnet easily, or more easily, and AAAA is "simpler" because they removed most of the cool features. I wonder how many ipv6 stacks had to support A6 records for how many decades; wonder how many still do...

          I honestly can't remember how many address assignment techs have been deployed for IPv6. There's RA, DHCPv6, I suppose technically SLAAC, and at least one other that died early, certainly dead by the mid 00s.

          For awhile (maybe still now) IPsec VPN used to be a mandatory component of IPv6 just because they could get away with middlemaning themselves in, and they thought it would be fun. It was not.

          The simple and obvious way to subnet was too simple and worked too well threatening network engineering jobs, so most savages F'd that up in different ways making it, in some ways, harder to use and less predictable than most IPv4 subnetting schemes. You could just give every org including homes a /48 and every physical/logical LAN a /64 but noooooooooo that would make too much sense and reduce employment!!!

          The whole extension header saga was hilarious. Lets add custom headers. Naw lets drop all packets containing custom headers when routed. OK lets fully support all possible combos of all possible situations.

          Personally I use 802.1(p) vlan layer 2 level QoS tagging on my network. Not to be outdone, lets put a DSCP tag in every layer 3 IPv6 packet, because according to the standards writers, 'F you' that's why. So QoS is inconsistent unpredictable complicated and weird on ipv6 and mixed networks. What could possibly go wrong with multiple QoS systems wrapped in each other LOL?

          NAT64 is LOL, thats another fun one.

          In a way OP is correct RFC 8200 is IIRC about forty pages and pretty readable to the point of no need to write ipv6 textbooks just read the Fing RFC. The problem is the steaming pile dumped on top of ipv6. Nobody would permit the idea of "just run ipv4 apps over ipv6 packets" so the process of moving from ipv4 to ipv6 is/was a F'd up dumpster fire.

          I'm so old school about ipv6, I still have a roughly quarter century old tee shirt from H.E. for passing their "ipv6 sage" or whatever it was called certification thingy back when it was new in the 90s. Back when their tunnel provider was a brand new idea they gave away tee shirts if you connected to their ipv6 tunnel and passed a bunch of automated-ish tests. Its a cool tee shirt.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 10, @01:48AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 10, @01:48AM (#1343800)

            I have successfully ignored IP6 up until now. Maybe in 2025 we will be deploying a product that gets a DHCP IP6 address, but for now we are just doing direct device to laptop connection which seems to work best as two 169.254.x.x addresses.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday February 09, @04:11PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09, @04:11PM (#1343738) Journal

        Nodes can be on the IPv4 network, on the IPv6 network, or on both networks.

        You can do a DNS lookup that gets back both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. You can choose which network you wish to communicate with that host.

        And the biggest obvious reason they are different networks, is that IPv6 is missing the extremely important Evil Bit [ietf.org] which is extremely important for network security and filtering [wikipedia.org] purposes.

        There should be engineering specifications such that IPv6 packets do not carry wrong thinking packets. Everyone could agree on that.

        --
        People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday February 09, @04:18PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09, @04:18PM (#1343739) Journal

        I realize I only responded to part of your request for elaboration. That it is a different network. Just as the same ethernet wire can bring you IPv4, AppleTalk, Decnet, Novell IPX/SPX and other totally different network protocols over the same ethernet carrier. Back in the day we in my office, and I personally, had classic Macintosh computers on ethernet that used three protocols on the same etherhet: TCP/IP (v4 of course), AppleTalk, and Novell IPX/SPX. Just install all of the software for each network into your Macintosh.

        Now for the unnecessary complexity part. Let me introduce you to one of the most sacred principles software developers hold most dearly. If it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is.

        --
        People who think Republicans wouldn't dare destroy Social Security or Medicare should ask women about Roe v Wade.
(1)