AWS Elastic IP architecture

Mon Jun 1 18:36:47 UTC 2015

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> On 6/1/2015 12:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> ... Here’s the thing… In order to land IPv6 services without IPv6 support
>> on the VM, you’re creating an environment where...
>>
>
> Let's hypothetically say that it is much easier for the cloud provider if
> they provide just a single choice within their network, but allow both v4
> and v6 access from the outside via a translator (to whichever one isn't
> native internally).
>
> Would you rather have:
> 1) An all-IPv6 network inside, so the hosts can all talk to each other
> over IPv6 without using (potentially overlapping copies of) RFC1918
> space... but where very little of the open-source software you build your
> services on works at all, because it either doesn't support IPv6 or they
> put some IPv6 support in but it is always lagging behind and the bugs don't
> get fixed in a timely manner. Or,
>

Facebook selected IPv6-only as outlined above

http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/03/facebook-is-close-to-having-ipv6-only.html

>
> 2) An all-IPv4 network inside, with the annoying (but well-known) use of
> RFC1918 IPv4 space and all your software stacks just work as they always
> have, only now the fraction of users who have IPv6 can reach them over IPv6
> if they so choose (despite the connectivity often being worse than the IPv4
> path) and the 2 people who are on IPv6-only networks can reach your
> services too.
>
> Until all of the common stacks that people build upon, including
> distributed databases, cache layers, web accelerators, etc. all work
> *better* when the native environment is IPv6, everyone will be choosing #2.
>
> And both #1 and #2 are cheaper and easier to manage that full dual-stack
> to every single host (because you pay all the cost of supporting v6
> everywhere with none of the savings of not having to deal with the
> ever-increasing complexity of continuing to use v4)
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>