7 ms·

I find it interesting that this didn't make into the keynote. Is the actual interest really low?

by cherioo 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Most production environments terminate on Cloudfront endpoints (or other CDNs) or ELBs/ALBs; not much need for IPv6 to individual instances (which can use IPv4 internally).
- zonknz 10y ago
  That's my thinking as well. Surely behind the edge is all implementation and should be hidden? The only appreciable benefit i can see right now is that everything moves back to be a routable internet, no more NAT / nat scaling issues for EC2's sending large quantities of data directly to the public internet?
- Aoreias 10y ago
  VPC ELBs and ALBs don't support ipv6 though. Presumably this is the first step to adding that support, although it's still not available even in the new ipv6 VPCs.
  - zippergz 10y ago
    They just announced during the ELB session that ALBs will be supporting full IPv6 also.
- bjeanes 10y ago
  The biggest advantage I see (which is heavily coloured by the use cases I faced at Heroku on the Add-ons team) is being able to peer many VPCs without gymnastics to avoid IP range clashes and routing issues. I haven't looked at AWS' IVv6 announcement in enough detail to know if it addresses this head on, but I always looked forward to IPv6 as an avenue to making that kind of work much more straight forward.
  - zonknz 10y ago
    But if the peering limit is still 50 vpcs - I guess it might help if/when inter-region peering ships
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Don't plan on inter-region peering ever shipping. Easy to do in network fabric at a region, not so easy to do across regions (constrained by fiber connectivity).
- knorrie 10y ago
  The opposite direction is more interesting. It might be finally possible to reach things floating out there on the internet which have an IPv6 address.
- wmf 10y ago
  The opposite pattern is much more convenient: IPv4 on the public endpoint and IPv6-only internally. AWS is now close to supporting this. http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/03/facebook-is-close-to-having-ipv6-only.html http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/03/facebook-is-close-to-having-...
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    Could you explain? How does it help to use IPv6 internally if you're using IPv4 publicly? One of the original motivations for IPv6 was that it would provide enough address space for every device in the world to have its own unique IP address. Then devices could communicate with each other directly, without worrying about intervening NATs. If you're using IPv4 publicly, then you've already lost that advantage. Concerning private networks, IPv4 offers more than enough address space within its private ranges for your private network. The 10.0.0.0/8 block provides 16 million addresses, and there's also 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16. There are certainly enough addresses in these ranges that running out is not a concern, so it does not seem that IPv6 would provide a benefit when applied specifically and only to private networks.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 10y ago
      Assuming you want to provide IPv4 and IPv6 to the outside: You can relatively easily map IPv4 addresses into IPv6 range: just pick a /96 prefix and append the 32 bit IPv6 address. This is a relatively easy translation, that does not require the machine doing the translation to keep state !!! (so you can send traffic to a random one and it can do the right thing, no need to have connections stick to one). It is thus quite easy to make an IPv6-only network deal with IPv4 clients. With decreasing IPv4 usage, your network naturally adapts since it only becomes easier. The reverse is not easily possible for serving IPv6 clients from an IPv4 network: you can't map IPv6 1:1 to IPv4, so your gateways have to be more like traditional NAT and keep state tables around, which makes operation in general and load-balancing/fail-over in particular harder. The more and more IPv6 clients you have, the more resources you need for the translation. And at some point in the future, you are going to want to switch. You could alternatively run your entire DC on IPv4 and IPv6 double-stack, but that adds a lot of unnecessary complexity. Your routers now have to keep routing tables for both around, behavior could differ for both, your applications (logging, fraud prevention, ...) have to understand both, ... If you are in a position where you control everything you run (so you can make sure there aren't any stragglers that require IPv4 because their vendor doesn't care or something like that), the IPv6 model can be attractive. Do the switch and be done with it for the future, limit your dealings with two protocols to the very edge.
blackaspen 10y ago
I went to one of the first IPv6 sessions at re:Invent this morning. The room was for maybe, 300-400 people? There were 40 or so people in it. So, yes, the interest is low. That said, I think it's a great signal to the industry, and I'm excited to try to use IPv6!
- lucb1e 10y ago
  > The room was for maybe, 300-400 people? There were 40 or so people in it. So, yes, the interest is low. I think everyone who needs IPv6 is just not using AWS (anymore).

I find it interesting that this didn't make into the keynote. Is the actual interest really low?

by cherioo 10y ago

I find it interesting that this didn't make into the keynote. Is the actual interest really low?

Most production environments terminate on Cloudfront endpoints (or other CDNs) or ELBs/ALBs; not much need for IPv6 to individual instances (which can use IPv4 internally).

zonknz 10y ago
That's my thinking as well. Surely behind the edge is all implementation and should be hidden? The only appreciable benefit i can see right now is that everything moves back to be a routable internet, no more NAT / nat scaling issues for EC2's sending large quantities of data directly to the public internet?
Aoreias 10y ago
VPC ELBs and ALBs don't support ipv6 though. Presumably this is the first step to adding that support, although it's still not available even in the new ipv6 VPCs.
- zippergz 10y ago
  They just announced during the ELB session that ALBs will be supporting full IPv6 also.
bjeanes 10y ago
The biggest advantage I see (which is heavily coloured by the use cases I faced at Heroku on the Add-ons team) is being able to peer many VPCs without gymnastics to avoid IP range clashes and routing issues. I haven't looked at AWS' IVv6 announcement in enough detail to know if it addresses this head on, but I always looked forward to IPv6 as an avenue to making that kind of work much more straight forward.
- zonknz 10y ago
  But if the peering limit is still 50 vpcs - I guess it might help if/when inter-region peering ships
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Don't plan on inter-region peering ever shipping. Easy to do in network fabric at a region, not so easy to do across regions (constrained by fiber connectivity).
knorrie 10y ago
The opposite direction is more interesting. It might be finally possible to reach things floating out there on the internet which have an IPv6 address.
wmf 10y ago
The opposite pattern is much more convenient: IPv4 on the public endpoint and IPv6-only internally. AWS is now close to supporting this. http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/03/facebook-is-close-to-having-ipv6-only.html http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/03/facebook-is-close-to-having-...
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  Could you explain? How does it help to use IPv6 internally if you're using IPv4 publicly? One of the original motivations for IPv6 was that it would provide enough address space for every device in the world to have its own unique IP address. Then devices could communicate with each other directly, without worrying about intervening NATs. If you're using IPv4 publicly, then you've already lost that advantage. Concerning private networks, IPv4 offers more than enough address space within its private ranges for your private network. The 10.0.0.0/8 block provides 16 million addresses, and there's also 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16. There are certainly enough addresses in these ranges that running out is not a concern, so it does not seem that IPv6 would provide a benefit when applied specifically and only to private networks.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - detaro 10y ago
    Assuming you want to provide IPv4 and IPv6 to the outside: You can relatively easily map IPv4 addresses into IPv6 range: just pick a /96 prefix and append the 32 bit IPv6 address. This is a relatively easy translation, that does not require the machine doing the translation to keep state !!! (so you can send traffic to a random one and it can do the right thing, no need to have connections stick to one). It is thus quite easy to make an IPv6-only network deal with IPv4 clients. With decreasing IPv4 usage, your network naturally adapts since it only becomes easier. The reverse is not easily possible for serving IPv6 clients from an IPv4 network: you can't map IPv6 1:1 to IPv4, so your gateways have to be more like traditional NAT and keep state tables around, which makes operation in general and load-balancing/fail-over in particular harder. The more and more IPv6 clients you have, the more resources you need for the translation. And at some point in the future, you are going to want to switch. You could alternatively run your entire DC on IPv4 and IPv6 double-stack, but that adds a lot of unnecessary complexity. Your routers now have to keep routing tables for both around, behavior could differ for both, your applications (logging, fraud prevention, ...) have to understand both, ... If you are in a position where you control everything you run (so you can make sure there aren't any stragglers that require IPv4 because their vendor doesn't care or something like that), the IPv6 model can be attractive. Do the switch and be done with it for the future, limit your dealings with two protocols to the very edge.

blackaspen 10y ago

I went to one of the first IPv6 sessions at re:Invent this morning. The room was for maybe, 300-400 people? There were 40 or so people in it. So, yes, the interest is low. That said, I think it's a great signal to the industry, and I'm excited to try to use IPv6!

lucb1e 10y ago
> The room was for maybe, 300-400 people? There were 40 or so people in it. So, yes, the interest is low. I think everyone who needs IPv6 is just not using AWS (anymore).