Since your network has IPv6, I fail to see the issue.
Nobody is anywhere near being able to go single-stack on IPv6, so AWS is just
another network your customers will continue to reach over v4. So what?
Heck, if v6 support from a cloud hosting company is so important, I see a great
business
On May 31, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Blair Trosper blair.tros...@gmail.com wrote:
AWS built their network first...before IPv6 popped, so you can appreciate
the huge task
they have of retrofitting all their products to support it.
Sure, and if they said “We have a plan, and it will take X amount
Disagree, and so does AWS. IPv6 has a huge utility: being a universal,
inter-region management network (a network that unites traffic between
regions on public and private netblocks). Plus, at least the CDN and ELBs
should be dual-stack, since more and more ISPs are turning on IPv6.
On Sun,
If your traffic is small, you could setup a VyOS box. You can still get
redundancy by having two switches, each one connected to an upstream
provider receiving a default route. Then hookup your VyOS router to
each switch and receive full routes to that. You will need a /29 subnet
from your
On 27/05/2015 20:35, Brian Rak wrote:
You don't need full promisc mode, just the (poorly documented)
allmulticast option (ip link set dev $macvtap allmulticast on)
...And poorly supported on some real hardware (notably Wi-Fi adapters),
where the hash filter on each NIC's MAC is not
On May 31, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
Since your network has IPv6, I fail to see the issue.
Nobody is anywhere near being able to go single-stack on IPv6, so AWS is just
another network your customers will continue to reach over v4. So what?
Sigh… The
Well, we´re using 2x Cisco 3560X switches for simple inbound/outbound
load sharing with our provider for years
(http://wiki.nil.com/EBGP_load_sharing). There´s no need for us going
full routes...
Regards,
Michael
Sigh…
IPv6 has huge utility.
AWS’ implementation of IPv6 is brain-dead and mostly useless for most
applications.
I think if you will review my track record over the last 5+ years, you will
plainly see that I am fully aware of the utility and need for IPv6.
Remember this:
1) for inbound traffic there will be no difference at all.
2) routers will ignore a static route if the link is down. If you can get
BFD from the providers then even better.
So you can emulate 99% of what you get with full routes by loading in
static routes. A simple example
AWS built their network first...before IPv6 popped, so you can appreciate
the huge task
they have of retrofitting all their products to support it.
I don't envy the task, but they have said publicly and privately that it's
a priority. But it's
also a massive undertaking, and you can't expect
I don't have a vendor-agnostic answer for you on #1, but as far as a vendor -
Ruckus Wireless. We are a partner who sells and deploys and the stuff is
quite awesome for what you're looking for. I'd be happy to introduce you to
relevant people over there for guidance.
Regards,
James
On 5/31/15, 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
if they said “We have a plan, and it will take X amount of time”, I would
respect that.
If they said “We have a plan and we’re not sure how long it will take”, I
would continue to poke
them about sooner is better than later and having a
On 5/31/2015 11:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
People who are building applications and considering hosting their
applications in the cloud should seriously consider whether this
limitation in AWS matters to them.
It doesn't, because everyone on the Internet can reach IPv4-hosted
services.
As I said before:
Host Virtual (vr.org http://vr.org/)
Softlayer (softlayer.com http://softlayer.com/)
Linode (Linode.com http://linode.com/)
All have full dual-stack support.
I’m sure there are others.
Owen
On May 31, 2015, at 2:49 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
On
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
As I said before:
Host Virtual (vr.org http://vr.org/)
Softlayer (softlayer.com http://softlayer.com/)
Linode (Linode.com http://linode.com/)
All have full dual-stack support.
snip
At the risk of feeding the troll...
Good day all,
We are looking forward to establish MetroWifi network as a new business
line in our company, in addition to small/medium events Wifi coverage.
I have two questions:
1. What are the required resources/material/training curriculum to let our
engineers start educating in this? We are
You may want to check out iBwave. They do training as well.
Ilissa Miller
On May 31, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Abdullah Medhat
abdullah.medhat.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
Good day all,
We are looking forward to establish MetroWifi network as a new business
line in our company, in addition to
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:28 PM, James Laszko jam...@mythostech.com wrote:
I don't have a vendor-agnostic answer for you on #1, but as far as a vendor -
Ruckus Wireless. We are a partner who sells and deploys and the stuff is
quite awesome for what you're looking for. I'd be happy to
Ubiquiti Networks.
Its cheap and it works great. Support sucks though.
I use Ubuquiti gear for my wireless ISP and i use their UniFi APs for when
i do events.
If you need high density wireless, check out Xirrus Wireless access points,
they are awesome.
-Mike
On May 31, 2015 3:30 PM, James
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:46:02PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
So... ok. What does it mean, for a customer of a cloud service, to be
ipv6 enabled?
IPv6 feature-parity with IPv4.
My must-haves, sorted in order of importance (most to least):
o Is it most important to be able to terminate
Perhaps if that energy which was spent on raging, instead was spent on
a Google search, then all those words would've been unnecessary.
As it turns out that IPv6 is already available on ELBs since 2011:
Hi,
We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load
balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as
efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to
take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 01:38:05AM +1000, Andras Toth wrote:
Perhaps if that energy which was spent on raging, instead was spent on
a Google search, then all those words would've been unnecessary.
Official documentation:
Congratulations for missing the point Matt, when I sent my email
(which by the way went for moderation) there wasn't a discussion about
Classic vs VPC yet. The discussion was no ipv6 in AWS which is not
true as I mentioned in my previous email. I did not state it works
everywhere, but it does
If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take advantage of
best paths to different networks (outbound), then you have to take full routes.
Or putting it another way Taking full routes offers the most flexibility,
anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable
Point of clarification: AWS customer IP subnets can overlap, but customer VPCs
that encompass overlapping subnets cannot peer with each other. In other words,
the standard arguments in favor of address uniqueness still apply.
TV
On May 31, 2015 7:23:37 AM EDT, Andras Toth diosbej...@gmail.com
BGP traffic engineering is kind of like Soda Prefer. that folks have Some
like Pepsi, some Like Coke, some don't care as long as it is Cold and fizzy.
Depending on who your two providers are, you may be happy with just taking full
routes, and doing some creative routing (i.e. setting up
I wasn’t being specific about VPC vs. Classic.
The support for IPv6 in Classic is extremely limited and basically useless for
99+% of applications.
I would argue that there is, therefore, effectively no meaningful support for
IPv6 in AWS, period.
What you describe below seems to me that it
Can your devices support a full table?
You can load balance outbound traffic easily with out doing a full table.
THo that won't be the shortest AS path. In regards to cost savings how were
you thinking of doing so? Does one provider charge more? Just use the cheaper
provider.
Hi,
No the current devices can't support full table (well not from both providers)
we would need to upgrade. Really in terms of cost saving just want to make
sure to not get charged overages because we utilise too much of one link and
not enough of another. I don't think the shortest AS path
Thanks,
So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price for a
full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the expenditure.
-Original Message-
From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc:
Interesting... is the cost associated with full tables just for the Hardware or
is the service provider charging extra for the full table.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:
Just for the hardware and the planning required for migrating to new hardware
human resource etc.
-Original Message-
From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: 31 May 2015 14:01
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or
On 31/May/15 14:09, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
I am just not sure of exactly how to define the partial routing table
criteria to our two providers. Should we just take routes for each provider
and their peers and a default from both?
Since you can't take a full feed from either upstream,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Maqbool Hashim maqb...@madbull.info wrote:
We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load
balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as
efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy
35 matches
Mail list logo
