News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addressed VM instances. Parent comment

Re:GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addres... by profmonocle on Monday August 19, 2019 @10:48PM (#20743448)
What's weird to me is that Google itself has excellent IPv6 support. Every Google web site, API, or other service I've come across fully supports IPv6. Compute Engine VMs are the outlier.

They actually utilize this for their "private Google access" system, which allows you to access Google services from a compute engine VM without a public v4 address. The VM's private v4 address gets mapped into an IPv6 address, along with some extra bytes identifying the customer's network. (You can see this by setting up such a VM and accessing an AppSpot app that echos your source IP.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addres... by lern_too_spel on Tuesday August 20, 2019 @04:25AM (#20744820)
Google doesn't use GCP for its major applications. Neither should you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addres... by zettatron on Monday August 19, 2019 @11:31PM (#20743607)
Hilarious. How poor is the talent on the GCP team that is foremost of your grievances?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addres... by big_chungus on Monday August 19, 2019 @11:44PM (#20743657)
Uhh, that's sort of a relevant "grievance" in a thread on GCP issues.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addres... by mav3rick on Tuesday August 20, 2019 @03:09AM (#20744487)
GCP and Infra both have very smart engineers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addres... by sieabahlpark on Tuesday August 20, 2019 @12:35AM (#20743872)
Unlike AWS which needs to be good to not go out of business.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCP to introduce an additional charge for publicly addres... by cromwellian on Tuesday August 20, 2019 @04:12AM (#20744773)
Right, because AWS isn’t part of a $900 billion market cap retail behemoth that can weather loses and no profits.
[ Parent | on HN ]