Wisdom of using 100.64/10 (RFC6598) space in an Amazon VPC deployment

Tue Feb 24 18:27:30 UTC 2015

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Ipv6 as the unique universal external
network and you can define your own IPv4 within your cloud context separate
from the cloud provider network and from other customers. So if you have
contexts in different region - you can interconnect using layer 3 or layer
2 - through the cloud provider network...bring your own IPv4. If you need
internet access, you'll get NATted. If you need connections to your
branches/HQs...etc, build your own tunnel or use the cloud provider - which
by the way gives you your own vrf so no need to worry about overlapping
anything.
Noone heard of Dimension Data Cloud? :)

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Blair Trosper <blair.trosper at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ADDENDUM:  They're taking into consideration my suggestion of using IPv6 as
> a "universal" internal network so that the different regions could be
> interconnected without having to give up the region-independent use of
> 10.0.0.0/8, which I think would be an elegant solution.
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Blair Trosper <blair.trosper at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have an unimpeachable source at AWS that assures me they're working
> hard
> > to deploy IPv6.  As it was explained to me, since AWS was sort of first
> to
> > the table -- well before IPv6 "popped", they had designed everything on
> the
> > v4 only.  Granted, you can get an IPv6 ELB, but only in EC2 classic,
> which
> > they're phasing out.
> >
> > But I'm assured they're rushing IPv6 deployment of CloudFront and other
> > services as fast as they can.  I'm assured of this.
> >
> > But you also have to appreciate the hassle of retrofitting a cloud
> > platform of that scale, so I do not envy the task that AWS is
> undertaking.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Amazon is not the only public cloud.
> >>
> >> There are several public clouds that can support IPv6 directly.
> >>
> >> I have done some work for and believe these guys do a good job:
> >>
> >> Host Virtual (vr.org <http://vr.org/>)
> >>
> >> In no particular order and I have no relationship with or loyalty or
> >> benefit associated with any of them. I neither endorse, nor decry any of
> >> the following:
> >>
> >> Linode
> >> SoftLayer
> >> RackSpace
> >>
> >> There are others that I am not recalling off the top of my head.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >> > On Feb 23, 2015, at 07:52 , Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Eric Germann <ekgermann at cctec.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Currently engaged on a project where they’re building out a VPC
> >> >> infrastructure for hosted applications.
> >> >>
> >> >> Users access apps in the VPC, not the other direction.
> >> >>
> >> >> The issue I'm trying to get around is the customers who need to
> connect
> >> >> have multiple overlapping RFC1918 space (including overlapping what
> was
> >> >> proposed for the VPC networks).  Finding a hole that is big enough
> and
> >> not
> >> >> in use by someone else is nearly impossible AND the customers could
> go
> >> >> through mergers which make them renumber even more in to overlapping
> >> 1918
> >> >> space.
> >> >>
> >> >> Initially, I was looking at doing something like (example IP’s):
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Customer A (172.28.0.0/24)  <—> NAT to 100.127.0.0/28 <——> VPN to DC
> >> <——>
> >> >> NAT from 100.64.0.0/18 <——>  VPC Space (was 172.28.0.0/24)
> >> >>
> >> >> Classic overlapping subnets on both ends with allocations out of
> >> >> 100.64.0.0/10 to NAT in both directions.  Each sees the other end in
> >> >> 100.64 space, but the mappings can get tricky and hard to keep track
> of
> >> >> (especially if you’re not a network engineer).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> In spitballing, the boat hasn’t sailed too far to say “Why not use
> >> >> 100.64/10 in the VPC?”
> >> >>
> >> >> Then, the customer would be allocated a /28 or larger (depending on
> >> needs)
> >> >> to NAT on their side and NAT it once.  After that, no more NAT for
> the
> >> VPC
> >> >> and it boils down to firewall rules.  Their device needs to NAT
> >> outbound
> >> >> before it fires it down the tunnel which pfSense and ASA’s appear to
> be
> >> >> able to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> I prototyped this up over the weekend with multiple VPC’s in multiple
> >> >> regions and it “appears” to work fine.
> >> >>
> >> >> From the operator community, what are the downsides?
> >> >>
> >> >> Customers are businesses on dedicated business services vs. consumer
> >> cable
> >> >> modems (although there are a few on business class cable).  Others
> are
> >> on
> >> >> MPLS and I’m hashing that out.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only one I can see is if the customer has a service provider with
> >> >> their external interface in 100.64 space.  However, this approach
> would
> >> >> have a more specific in that space so it should fire it down the
> >> tunnel for
> >> >> their allocated customer block (/28) vs. their external side.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts and thanks in advance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Eric
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Wouldn't it be nice if Amazon supported IPv6 in VPC?
> >> >
> >> > I have disqualified several projects from using the "public cloud" and
> >> put
> >> > them in the on-premise "private cloud"  because Amazon is missing this
> >> key
> >> > scaling feature -- ipv6.   It is odd that Amazon, a company with scale
> >> > deeply in its DNA, fails so hard on IPv6.  I guess they have a lot of
> >> > brittle technical debt they can't upgrade.
> >> >
> >> > I suggest you go with private cloud if possible.
> >> >
> >> > Or, you can double NAT non-unique IPv4 space.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding 100.64.0.0/10, despite what the RFCs may say, this space is
> >> just
> >> > an augment of RFC1918 and i have already deployed it as such.
> >> >
> >> > CB
> >>
> >>
> >
>