AWS Elastic IP architecture

Tue Jun 2 01:41:30 UTC 2015

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <CAL9jLaaQUP1UzoKag3Kuq8a5bMcB2q6Yg=B_=1fFWxRN6K-bNA at mail.gmail.com
>>, Christopher Morrow writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, June 1, 2015, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In message
>> >> <CAL9jLaYXCdfViHbUPx-=rs4vSx5mFECpfuE8b7VQ+Au2hCXpMQ at mail.gmail.com>
>> >> , Christopher Morrow writes:
>> >> > So... I don't really see any of the above arguments for v6 in a vm
>> >> > setup to really hold water in the short term at least.  I think for
>> >> > sure you'll want v6 for public services 'soon' (arguably like 10 yrs
>> >> > ago so you'd get practice and operational experience and ...) but for
>> >> > the rest sure it's 'nice', and 'cute', but really not required for
>> >> > operations (unless you have v6 only customers)
>> >>
>> >> Everyone has effectively IPv6-only customers today.  IPv6 native +
>> >> CGN only works for services.  Similarly DS-Lite and 464XLAT.
>>
>> ok, and for the example of 'put my service in the cloud' ... the
>> service is still accessible over ipv4 right?
>
> It depends on what you are trying to do.  Having something in the
> cloud manage something at home.  You can't reach the home over IPv4
> more and more these days as.  IPv6 is the escape path for that but
> you need both ends to be able to speak IPv6.  This will happen to
> business as well.  The ability to be able to be able to call out
> to everyone is lost if the cloud provider doesn't fully support
> IPv6.
>

so, I totally agree that long term v6 must also appear in the
cloud-spaces... I was (long back in this thread) asking:
  "sure, v6 is great, what top 1-3 things could a cloud provider
prioritize NOW to get the ball rolling"  (presuming they have some
'real' reason why v6 'just can not be added to interface configs').

> There are a whole segment of applications that don't work, or don't
> work well, or don't work without a whole lot of additional investment
> when one end is behind a CGN (covers all the above as IPv4 is
> supplied over a CGN).
>

'additional investment' == 'client initiates connection to server'

right? :)

> This attitude of we don't have to invest in IPv6 yet because we
> have lots of public IPv4 addresses stinks to high heaven these day,
> whether you are a ISP, cloud provider or someone else.

yup, agreed. I was (and am still) reacting to the 'everything is
horrible and broken because I can't talk the v6's to all my internal
machines' when ... that seems (to me at least) to be completely
immaterial when 'there is a v6 endpoint for your http/https/xmpp/etc'
available 'now'. (or could be in relatively short order).

-chris