Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshstrange | Hacker News Reader

> penalty for people who are bad at networking

You mean customers? I can't access IPv6-only websites because my ISP doesn't support it. Oh, and I have the best ISP in the area but none of the ISPs here have IPv6 support.

If you mean routing multiple servers through one that uses IPv4 so you only have to pay for 1 machine then yeah, I guess I'm bad at networking, that does not sound like something I want to maintain.

View on HN

routing multiple servers through one that uses IPv4 so you only have to pay for 1 machine

This is called a NAT gateway and it's AWS networking 101. If you're not willing to learn how to use AWS then you're going to get ripped off.

Having looked at the pricing for a nat gateway device on aws for some lambda related networking woes recently... You're getting ripped off still unless you handroll or ansible playbook your own nat gateway.

Nat gateways really only hurt if you have fairly high traffic iirc. AWS always dings you on egress traffic in general.

In that case this may be preferable: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_NAT_Ins...

NAT gateways were the ripoff before this change :) AWS NAT could be described as paying AWS to give yourself a worse networking experience. which I guess is probably why they've made this change. NAT gateway is very similar to assigning a public IP to your instance except that when you use the NAT gateway you don't have 1:1 private to public ip addresses. AWS public IP is just 1:1 NAT. If you don't want any incoming connections with the public IP then you just don't allow incoming connections in the security groups rules and it's almost identical to AWS NAT. AWS NAT was mostly a disadvantage except if you want to originate traffic from a fixed set of ip addresses and you don't have your own public ip range to allocate from. Of course now with the pricing changes it should be cheaper to use AWS NAT over public IP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com