[180278] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Sat May 30 12:28:24 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <93B91051-04B2-4251-A06F-AC5F4609E8F2@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 12:28:21 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: "Luan Nguyen \(CBU\)" <luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 29, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>>
>> i love that you are always combative, it makes for great tv.
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 29, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> why can't they do v6 with any other encap?
>>>
>>> That=E2=80=99s not my point.
>>>
>>
>> sort of seemed like part of your point.
>>
>
> I swear, it really wasn=E2=80=99t.
sweet! :)
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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 off=
er so much as a verification that IPv6 is on any sort of roadmap or is at a=
ll likely to be considered for deployment any time in the foreseeable futur=
e.
>>>
>>
>> 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 righ=
t, 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.
>
it is sort of a bummer, they WILL have to do it eventually though
(you'd think)... and 'sooner rather than later' makes a lot of sense
to work out the bugs and problems and 'we should have thoughta
that!'s...not to mention as they sit and grow it becomes more painful
everyday to make the move :(
Amazon doesn't even offer a v4/v6 LoadBalancer service right? (I had
thought they did, but I guess I'm mis-remembering)
>>> So, my point wasn=E2=80=99t that LISP is the only encapsulation that su=
pports IPv6. Indeed, I didn=E2=80=99t even say that. What I said was that t=
heir 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.
>>>
>>> Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth in the future.
>>>
>>
>> you have so many words there already it's going to be fun fitting more
>> in if I did try.
>
> LoL
>
>>
>> have a swell weekend!
>
> You too.
so far so good! (hoping for a little rain to cool/clean things)
