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: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/elastic-load-balancing-ipv6-zone-apex-support-additional-security/ Official documentation: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb-internet-facing-load-balancers.html#internet-facing-ip-addresses Netflix is using it already as per their techblog since 2012: http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/enabling-support-for-ipv6.html Regards, Andras On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> On May 29, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> Yeah, if it were LISP, they could probably handle IPv6. >> >> why can't they do v6 with any other encap? > > That’s not my point. > >> the encap really doesn't matter at all to the underlying ip protocol >> used, or shouldn't... you decide at the entrance to the 'virtual >> network' that 'thingy is in virtual-network-5 and encap the packet... >> regardless of ip version of the thing you are encapsulating. > > Whatever encapsulation or other system they are using, clearly they can’t do > IPv6 for some reason because they outright refuse to even offer so much as a > verification that IPv6 is on any sort of roadmap or is at all likely to be > considered for deployment any time in the foreseeable future. > > So, my point wasn’t that LISP is the only encapsulation that supports IPv6. > Indeed, I didn’t even say that. What I said was that their apparent complete > inability to do IPv6 makes it unlikely that they are using an IPv6-capable > encapsulation system. Thus, it is unlikely they are using LISP. I only > referenced LISP because it was specifically mentioned by the poster to whom I > was responding. > > Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth in the future. > > Owen >
