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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Eric Germann <[email protected]> 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
