[180271] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri May 29 21:47:02 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYugxEGSoJ=ZN8LYzz21GXB=iB2MdyQGZjB0Sqq0teBSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:45:01 -0700
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: "Luan Nguyen \(CBU\)" <luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On May 29, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Christopher Morrow =
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> i love that you are always combative, it makes for great tv.
>=20
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On May 29, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Christopher Morrow =
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>>>> Yeah, if it were LISP, they could probably handle IPv6.
>>>=20
>>> why can't they do v6 with any other encap?
>>=20
>> That=E2=80=99s not my point.
>>=20
>=20
> sort of seemed like part of your point.
>=20
I swear, it really wasn=E2=80=99t.
>>> the encap really doesn't matter at all to the underlying ip protocol
>>> used, or shouldn't... you decide at the entrance to the 'virtual
>>> network' that 'thingy is in virtual-network-5 and encap the =
packet...
>>> regardless of ip version of the thing you are encapsulating.
>>=20
>> Whatever encapsulation or other system they are using, clearly they =
can=E2=80=99t do IPv6 for some reason because they outright refuse to =
even offer so much as a verification that IPv6 is on any sort of roadmap =
or is at all likely to be considered for deployment any time in the =
foreseeable future.
>>=20
>=20
> it's totally possible that they DO LISP and simply disable ipv6 for
> some other unspecified reason too, right? Maybe they are just on a
> jihad against larger ip numbers? or their keyboards have no colons?
I suppose, but according to statements made by their engineers, it has =
to do with the =E2=80=9Cway that they have structured their backend =
networks to the virtual hosts=E2=80=9D.
I=E2=80=99m pretty sure that I=E2=80=99ve ruled the last two out based =
on discussions I=E2=80=99ve had with their engineers, but you=E2=80=99re =
right, I was probably a little more glib about it than was 100% =
accurate.
Bottom line, however, is it doesn=E2=80=99t matter what the reason, they =
are utterly incapable of doing IPv6 and utterly and completely =
unrepentant about it.
>=20
>> So, my point wasn=E2=80=99t that LISP is the only encapsulation that =
supports IPv6. Indeed, I didn=E2=80=99t even say that. What I said was =
that their apparent complete inability to do IPv6 makes it unlikely that =
they are using an IPv6-capable encapsulation system. Thus, it is =
unlikely they are using LISP. I only referenced LISP because it was =
specifically mentioned by the poster to whom I was responding.
>>=20
>> Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth in the future.
>>=20
>=20
> you have so many words there already it's going to be fun fitting more
> in if I did try.
LoL
>=20
> have a swell weekend!
You too.
Owen
