[remram]

I will quote the comment you are trying to justify:

> With ipv6 they can now be fully scaled easily but they are absolutely awesome, much easier to scale because you can give your client a simple list of sse services and its essentially stateless if done right.

If you don't understand it either please stop saying random stuff about IPv6 that we already know and has nothing to do with this thread.

[apitman]

I stand by my comment. I think the suggestion that scaling might be limited by IPv4 cost is a reasonable guess as to OP's concerns.

[remram]

How is it limited? How is it less limited with IPv6?

A client gets an SSE endpoint (hostname). That endpoint maps to an IP. A server at that IP receives the connection. Which part is better with v6?

Are we talking about the few cents it would cost you to give each server an IPv4? Are we thinking about a distant future where that cost is not negligible compared to the cost of compute? Something else?

[apitman]

AWS is now charging about $3/mo per IPv4 address. If that's negligible for you, awesome. It's not negligible for everyone.

[remram]

So that was the only argument. Wow, I'm glad I finally got to it, but I'm not amazed. All it took is making it up myself.

I don't use AWS so ok thanks. And if I did, I would use their ingress/gateway solutions, which totally circumvent this problem (while being quite expensive anyway).

[apitman]

I agree, AWS is way too expensive. In fact you have a good point which is that the cost of compute on AWS is significantly higher, such that the relative cost of IPs isn't as significant. You can get a solid VPS from Hetzner for the cost of an AWS IP address.

What's your preferred provider?

[remram]

I don't feel it would be right to just give you an answer after chasing yours 11 messages deep and finally having to make it up myself. I don't have the kind of emotional energy it takes to communicate with you.