[180290] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andras Toth)
Sun May 31 02:43:13 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0FBA59E3-5EA1-4605-8418-EAC5D2564DB6@delong.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 01:38:05 +1000
From: Andras Toth <diosbejgli@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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-supp=
ort-additional-security/
Official documentation:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb-i=
nternet-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
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.com=
> 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 supp=
orts IPv6. Indeed, I didn=E2=80=99t even say that. What I said was that the=
ir apparent complete inability to do IPv6 makes it unlikely that they are u=
sing an IPv6-capable encapsulation system. Thus, it is unlikely they are us=
ing LISP. I only referenced LISP because it was specifically mentioned by t=
he poster to whom I was responding.
>
> Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth in the future.
>
> Owen
>
