3 ms·
That's addressed in the article: "We purposely don’t employ dynamic IPs to retain multi-cloud deployment capabilities and prevent vendor lock-in with one platfo
by Tijdreiziger 9y ago
That's addressed in the article: "We purposely don’t employ dynamic IPs to retain multi-cloud deployment capabilities and prevent vendor lock-in with one platform."
- luhn 9y agoI was really confused by this. Cloud vendors are not bring-your-own-IP AFAIK, how can they even get a non-virtual static IP addresses on the cloud?
- falcolas 9y agoI'd hazard a guess that the cost of moving IPs would severely outweigh the cost of switching VIP implementations, in terms of preventing a move across providers.
- sitharus 9y agoThat still makes no sense. AWS and DigitalOcean both allow for static IP addresses that can be migrated between instances. There's no reason for crazy in-place upgrades.
- FuckOffNeemo 9y agoWhy not have the machines presented to the clients or other interfaces by a virtual IP from an application delivery controller such as F5's BigIP or similar? And then remove the dependency on static NIC's on a virtual appliance? Seems counter intuitive to run virtual appliances on static addresses if it can be avoided.