Wisdom of using 100.64/10 (RFC6598) space in an Amazon VPC deployment

[cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By)]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Blair Trosper <blair.trosper at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have an unimpeachable source at AWS that assures me they're working hard
> to deploy IPv6.  As it was explained to me, since AWS was sort of first to
> the table -- well before IPv6 "popped", they had designed everything on the
> v4 only.  Granted, you can get an IPv6 ELB, but only in EC2 classic, which
> they're phasing out.
>
> But I'm assured they're rushing IPv6 deployment of CloudFront and other
> services as fast as they can.  I'm assured of this.
>
>
talk is cheap.  I suggest people use Cloudflare or Akamai for proper IPv6
CDN reach to major IPv6 eyeball networks at AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and
T-Mobile US -- all of which have major ipv6 deployments

http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/




> But you also have to appreciate the hassle of retrofitting a cloud
> platform of that scale, so I do not envy the task that AWS is undertaking.
>
>
work is hard


> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> Amazon is not the only public cloud.
>>
>> There are several public clouds that can support IPv6 directly.
>>
>> I have done some work for and believe these guys do a good job:
>>
>> Host Virtual (vr.org <http://vr.org/>)
>>
>>
>> In no particular order and I have no relationship with or loyalty or
>> benefit associated with any of them. I neither endorse, nor decry any of
>> the following:
>>
>> Linode
>> SoftLayer
>> RackSpace
>>
>> There are others that I am not recalling off the top of my head.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 2015, at 07:52 , Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Eric Germann <ekgermann at cctec.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Currently engaged on a project where theyâ??re building out a VPC
>> >> infrastructure for hosted applications.
>> >>
>> >> Users access apps in the VPC, not the other direction.
>> >>
>> >> The issue I'm trying to get around is the customers who need to connect
>> >> have multiple overlapping RFC1918 space (including overlapping what was
>> >> proposed for the VPC networks).  Finding a hole that is big enough and
>> not
>> >> in use by someone else is nearly impossible AND the customers could go
>> >> through mergers which make them renumber even more in to overlapping
>> 1918
>> >> space.
>> >>
>> >> Initially, I was looking at doing something like (example IPâ??s):
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Customer A (172.28.0.0/24)  <â??> NAT to 100.127.0.0/28 <â??â??> VPN to DC
>> <â??â??>
>> >> NAT from 100.64.0.0/18 <â??â??>  VPC Space (was 172.28.0.0/24)
>> >>
>> >> Classic overlapping subnets on both ends with allocations out of
>> >> 100.64.0.0/10 to NAT in both directions.  Each sees the other end in
>> >> 100.64 space, but the mappings can get tricky and hard to keep track of
>> >> (especially if youâ??re not a network engineer).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In spitballing, the boat hasnâ??t sailed too far to say â??Why not use
>> >> 100.64/10 in the VPC?â??
>> >>
>> >> Then, the customer would be allocated a /28 or larger (depending on
>> needs)
>> >> to NAT on their side and NAT it once.  After that, no more NAT for the
>> VPC
>> >> and it boils down to firewall rules.  Their device needs to NAT
>> outbound
>> >> before it fires it down the tunnel which pfSense and ASAâ??s appear to be
>> >> able to do.
>> >>
>> >> I prototyped this up over the weekend with multiple VPCâ??s in multiple
>> >> regions and it â??appearsâ?? to work fine.
>> >>
>> >> From the operator community, what are the downsides?
>> >>
>> >> Customers are businesses on dedicated business services vs. consumer
>> cable
>> >> modems (although there are a few on business class cable).  Others are
>> on
>> >> MPLS and Iâ??m hashing that out.
>> >>
>> >> The only one I can see is if the customer has a service provider with
>> >> their external interface in 100.64 space.  However, this approach would
>> >> have a more specific in that space so it should fire it down the
>> tunnel for
>> >> their allocated customer block (/28) vs. their external side.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts and thanks in advance.
>> >>
>> >> Eric
>> >>
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it be nice if Amazon supported IPv6 in VPC?
>> >
>> > I have disqualified several projects from using the "public cloud" and
>> put
>> > them in the on-premise "private cloud"  because Amazon is missing this
>> key
>> > scaling feature -- ipv6.   It is odd that Amazon, a company with scale
>> > deeply in its DNA, fails so hard on IPv6.  I guess they have a lot of
>> > brittle technical debt they can't upgrade.
>> >
>> > I suggest you go with private cloud if possible.
>> >
>> > Or, you can double NAT non-unique IPv4 space.
>> >
>> > Regarding 100.64.0.0/10, despite what the RFCs may say, this space is
>> just
>> > an augment of RFC1918 and i have already deployed it as such.
>> >
>> > CB
>>
>>
>