AWS Elastic IP architecture
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Sat May 30 16:29:17 UTC 2015
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Andras Toth <diosbejgli at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
ah! I thought I'd remembered this for ~v6day or something similar.
cool! so at least for some LB services you can get v6 entrance
> Official documentation:
> Netflix is using it already as per their techblog since 2012:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, 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.
>>> 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.
>> 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.
More information about the NANOG