[180279] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Sat May 30 12:31:42 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAAtZb4reRD-rtrKZ8XZ5RywDkJLPzU+J2isvLmVZerF8kkxZ1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 12:29:17 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Andras Toth <diosbejgli@gmail.com>
Cc: "Luan Nguyen \(CBU\)" <luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Andras Toth <diosbejgli@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps if that energy which was spent on raging, instead was spent on
> a Google search, then all those words would've been unnecessary.
>
> As it turns out that IPv6 is already available on ELBs since 2011:
> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/elastic-load-balancing-ipv6-zone-apex-su=
pport-additional-security/
>
ah! I thought I'd remembered this for ~v6day or something similar.
cool! so at least for some LB services you can get v6 entrance
services.
> Official documentation:
> http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb=
-internet-facing-load-balancers.html#internet-facing-ip-addresses
>
> Netflix is using it already as per their techblog since 2012:
> http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/enabling-support-for-ipv6.html
>
neat!
> Regards,
> Andras
>
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 29, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.co=
m> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> So, my point wasn=E2=80=99t that LISP is the only encapsulation that sup=
ports IPv6. Indeed, I didn=E2=80=99t even say that. What I said was that th=
eir apparent complete inability to do IPv6 makes it unlikely that they are =
using an IPv6-capable encapsulation system. Thus, it is unlikely they are u=
sing 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.
>>
>> Owen
>>
