That's sort of what I meant to say. I did not articulate it well.
The problem *with* AWS is that in VPC (or different regions), the internal
network space is unique to each region. So, in theory, I could get
10.1.2.3 in two regions on two instances. In VPC, you can also designate
your own
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
As one of the authors involved in what eventually became RFC6598, this isn’t
entirely accurate.
100.64/10 is intended as space to be used by service providers for dealing with
situations where additional shared private address space is required, but it
must be distinct from the private address
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
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:08 AM, 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
I personally find it amusing that companies try to have it both ways.
We are huge, you should use us instead of $LITTLE_GUY because our resources
scale make us better able to handle things. Oh, what, you want IPv6? We're too
big to do that quickly
But hey, I would try the same thing in
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
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
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonVPC/latest/UserGuide/vpc-peering.html
On 2/24/15 10:59 AM, Blair Trosper wrote:
In VPC, you can also designate
your own subnets, which makes things a little more tough a la
interconnecting the disparate regions.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Luan Nguyen
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
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Eric Germann ekgerm...@cctec.com wrote:
In spitballing, the boat hasn't sailed too far to say Why not
use 100.64/10 in the VPC?
The only one I can see is if the customer has a service provider
with their external interface in 100.64 space. However, this
I put lots of these to good use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses
Regarding public cloud with ipv6 support, contact me off-list i might even
get you a special discount
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Eric
Hi, Eric -
Bill already described the salient points. The transition space is
meant to be used for cases where there are multiple stacked NATs, such
as CGN with CPE-based NAT. In theory, if the NAT implementations support
it, one could use it repeatedly by stacking NAT on top of NAT ad
Subject: Wisdom of using 100.64/10 (RFC6598) space in an Amazon VPC deployment
Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02:44AM -0500 Quoting Eric Germann
(ekgerm...@cctec.com):
Currently engaged on a project where they’re building out a VPC
infrastructure for hosted applications.
snip
Thoughts and
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Eric Germann ekgerm...@cctec.com wrote:
In spitballing, the boat hasn’t sailed too far to say “Why not use 100.64/10
in the VPC?”
Read RFC6598.
If you can assure the conditions are met that are listed in 4.
Use of Shared CGN Space..
Then usage of the
Then usage of the 100.64/10 shared space may be applicable, under
other conditions it may be risky
about as risky as the rest of private address space.
randy
Might be ill-advised since AWS uses it themselves for their internal
networking. Just traceroute to any API endpoint from an EC2/VPC resource
or instance. :)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
wrote:
Subject: Wisdom of using 100.64/10 (RFC6598) space in an
Mulling over the implications of this.
[root@ip-100-64-0-55 ~]# traceroute s3.amazonaws.com
traceroute to s3.amazonaws.com (54.231.0.64), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 ec2-79-125-0-202.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com (79.125.0.202) 1.068 ms
0.824 ms 0.787 ms
2 178.236.1.18 (178.236.1.18)
18 matches
Mail list logo
