Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture

[Todd Underwood <toddunder () gmail com>]

fb is not a 'cloud provider'.

it's orthogonal to the question.

t

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>
> wrote:
>
> > On 6/1/2015 12:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > ... Here’s the thing… In order to land IPv6 services without IPv6
> support
> > > on the VM, you’re creating an environment where...
> >
> > Let's hypothetically say that it is much easier for the cloud provider if
> > they provide just a single choice within their network, but allow both v4
> > and v6 access from the outside via a translator (to whichever one isn't
> > native internally).
> >
> > Would you rather have:
> > 1) An all-IPv6 network inside, so the hosts can all talk to each other
> > over IPv6 without using (potentially overlapping copies of) RFC1918
> > space... but where very little of the open-source software you build your
> > services on works at all, because it either doesn't support IPv6 or they
> > put some IPv6 support in but it is always lagging behind and the bugs
> don't
> > get fixed in a timely manner. Or,
>
>
> Facebook selected IPv6-only as outlined above
>
> http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/03/facebook-is-close-to-having-ipv6-only.html
>
>
> > 2) An all-IPv4 network inside, with the annoying (but well-known) use of
> > RFC1918 IPv4 space and all your software stacks just work as they always
> > have, only now the fraction of users who have IPv6 can reach them over
> IPv6
> > if they so choose (despite the connectivity often being worse than the
> IPv4
> > path) and the 2 people who are on IPv6-only networks can reach your
> > services too.
> >
> > Until all of the common stacks that people build upon, including
> > distributed databases, cache layers, web accelerators, etc. all work
> > *better* when the native environment is IPv6, everyone will be choosing
> #2.
> > And both #1 and #2 are cheaper and easier to manage that full dual-stack
> > to every single host (because you pay all the cost of supporting v6
> > everywhere with none of the savings of not having to deal with the
> > ever-increasing complexity of continuing to use v4)
> >
> > Matthew Kaufman