AWS Elastic IP architecture

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Sat May 30 01:14:28 UTC 2015


i love that you are always combative, it makes for great tv.

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 29, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, if it were LISP, they could probably handle IPv6.
>>
>> why can't they do v6 with any other encap?
>
> That’s not my point.
>

sort of seemed like part of your 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’t 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.
>

it's totally possible that they DO LISP and simply disable ipv6 for
some other unspecified reason too, right? Maybe they are just on a
jihad against larger ip numbers? or their keyboards have no colons?

> So, my point wasn’t that LISP is the only encapsulation that supports IPv6. Indeed, I didn’t 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.
>
> Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth in the future.
>

you have so many words there already it's going to be fun fitting more
in if I did try.

have a swell weekend!

>



More information about the NANOG mailing list