[180286] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat May 30 20:39:16 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAtZb4reRD-rtrKZ8XZ5RywDkJLPzU+J2isvLmVZerF8kkxZ1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:35:24 -0700
To: Andras Toth <diosbejgli@gmail.com>
Cc: luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On May 30, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Andras Toth <diosbejgli@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Perhaps if that energy which was spent on raging, instead was spent on
> a Google search, then all those words would've been unnecessary.
>=20
> 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-sup=
port-additional-security/ =
<https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/elastic-load-balancing-ipv6-zone-apex-su=
pport-additional-security/>
See other posts=E2=80=A6 ELB is being phased out and works only with EC2 =
and classic. As I said, it does not work with modern Amazon VPC.
> Official documentation:
> =
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb-=
internet-facing-load-balancers.html#internet-facing-ip-addresses =
<http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb=
-internet-facing-load-balancers.html#internet-facing-ip-addresses>
All well and good and equally irrelevant.
> Netflix is using it already as per their techblog since 2012:
> http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/enabling-support-for-ipv6.html =
<http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/enabling-support-for-ipv6.html>
Yes=E2=80=A6 This token checkbox effort which doesn=E2=80=99t work =
unless you are running on old hosts without access to any current =
storage technologies and face other limitations is available.
My statements stand, as far as I am concerned.
Owen
>=20
> Regards,
> Andras
>=20
>=20
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>> Owen
>>=20
