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.tros...@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 <o...@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.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Eric Germann <ekgerm...@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 >> >> >