On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 09:12, Noah Meyerhans <[email protected]> wrote: > However, based on the responses, it is evident that this change will > cause sufficient problems for enough people that we should reconsider > its timing. To be clear, there is absolutely no pressure from AWS or > any other entity to reduce our IPv4 footprint. This change is desirable > in that it simplifies how our instances connect to the internet, making > it easier to reason about their exposure, etc, but if we need to > continue to manage direct IPv4 connectivity, we can do that. > > Rather than postponing this change indefinitely, what about delaying it > until June 2022 (chosen arbitrarily). This gives more time for people > to come to terms with the changes and make plans to adjust accordingly.
I guess I should probably also chime in with my own reasons for using IPv4 (for completeness in the thread, if nothing else). My current setup is that I have a single instance (with a public IPv4 address) and I've got the security group locked down to only allow access from the two specific locations I need to access it from. One of these locations has IPv6, but the other does not, so if I no longer had IPv4 access for that instance I'd have to figure out some kind of proxying solution (for the limited SSH and HTTP access I use), and IMO that's going to be a net negative to the security of that instance, so I'd really appreciate having continued access to that single IPv4. 😬 ♥, - Tianon 4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36 4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4
