News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by bilalq on Friday February 02, 2024 @02:55PM (#39233362)
The NAT tax is real. We got to tens of thousands of registered users of our app with the $30/month NAT gateway being like 90% of our AWS bill. And it didn't even serve customer facing traffic! At the time, it's only use was for a serverless Aurora DB used by background jobs.

It only gets more expensive when you actually serve large amounts of traffic, need multi-AZ setups, and run multiple AWS accounts for different envs for beta/prod and each engineer's sandbox account. The worst part of cloud billing is how each base cost has several dimensions of multipliers.

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by outworlder on Friday February 02, 2024 @03:53PM (#39234224)
I don't know about your specific network architecture but, if you need to access AWS services from inside your VPC, make sure to configure a VPC endpoint for the services where it is available(RDS is one of them).

Far too many people forget about that and send their AWS traffic through their NAT GWs.

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by icedchai on Friday February 02, 2024 @05:06PM (#39235098)
Keep in mind for low traffic sites, it may be cheaper to use NAT, if you already need it for something else. All those "VPC endpoints" can really add up. It's kind of crazy you gotta pay for the privilege of connecting to AWS from within AWS.
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by paulddraper on Friday February 02, 2024 @03:23PM (#39233790)
I don't pay the NAT tax.

I just use public IP addresses.

It's fine, it works. Worked for EC2-Classic, works today.

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by ipython on Friday February 02, 2024 @05:32PM (#39235352)
You now get charged for ipv4 addresses as well. Less than nat, yes, but now ipv4 addresses are no longer free either.
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by paulddraper on Friday February 02, 2024 @06:02PM (#39235647)
So upgrade to IPv6.
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Friday February 02, 2024 @07:44PM (#39236497)
and if you want to connect to anything ipv4-only like, say GitHub, then what?
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by api on Friday February 02, 2024 @08:09PM (#39236652)
How is GitHub still IPv4 only? Ridiculous.
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Friday February 02, 2024 @08:15PM (#39236682)
They're not the only ones either. OpenAI also doesn't have ipv6 APIs, and neither does Stripe, many many others....
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by Shorn on Friday February 02, 2024 @09:28PM (#39237077)
Or, y'know.... 89% of AWS own services: https://awsipv6.neveragain.de/
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by RinTohsaka on Friday February 02, 2024 @11:24PM (#39237518)
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @01:34AM (#39238049)
Tbh this site is pretty misleading. Fastly and Cloudflare support ipv6 pretty well in their productы, it’s just that their marketing team apparently don’t care
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by diggan on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:38PM (#39244999)
> Tbh this site is pretty misleading

The website is pretty explicit about that it's testing if a domain/website is available over IPv6 vs IPv4. Clicking on a website also sends you to https://ipv6.fail/domain/cloudflare.net/ where it's even more explicit what they're testing against. Wouldn't call it misleading exactly.

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by chaz6 on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:30AM (#39238815)
Use a nat64 gateway (a list is at https://nat64.xyz).
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by thelastparadise on Saturday February 03, 2024 @08:49AM (#39240312)
Just bolting on thing after thing to make it sort of work, maybe, sometimes.

I'll be sticking with ipv4.

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by paulddraper on Saturday February 03, 2024 @01:30PM (#39243238)
IPv6 NAT is "bolting on thing after thing" but IPv4 NAT is good architecture :P
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @03:39PM (#39244511)
You do realize you also need dns64 for this to work right? So in fact your proposed architecture is strictly worse
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by orangeboats on Sunday February 04, 2024 @10:09AM (#39250748)
It doesn't take much effort to setup DNS64 though.

Source: I have used NAT64 myself before.

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by dilyevsky on Saturday February 03, 2024 @03:39PM (#39244516)
Not something i would use in prod and also needs dns64
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by pryz on Friday February 02, 2024 @09:16PM (#39237013)
Except that way many many AWS services can't do ipv6.
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by diggan on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:36PM (#39244985)
And since AWS/Amazon gets more money by not supporting IPv6 everywhere, why would they enable it?
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by mattigames on Friday February 02, 2024 @03:19PM (#39233736)
That's a feature not a bug (for Amazon and others)
Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by candiodari on Saturday February 03, 2024 @04:54AM (#39238921)
You do realize this is AWS policy, right? I mean you cannot run away from AWS costs ... on AWS. They are targeting dollar amounts of profits for themselves, not charging cost+20% for service X. They will find some other way to charge you the yet more than you're saving here, because MBA culture.

And AWS is like 10x more expensive than dedicated hosting, minimum. Not 10%, 1000%. To the point that for the price of

I mean if cost matters to you you need to move out of the cloud. Plenty of Kubernetes hosting these days, and very easy to set it up yourself.

Re:Fck-nat: The (f)easible (C)ost (k)onfigurable NAT by fulafel on Saturday February 03, 2024 @05:44AM (#39239148)
This. You then work to dig deeper into the vendor lock-in, to move your apps to use apparently cheaper AWS-only services, and if you're wily (or oblivious) you can report this as cost savings.