undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjauer6y ago0 comments

> If you don't have multicast support at all in your network infrastructure, which as the article points out isn't common to have on cloud networks,

Huh? Are you assuming large flat L2 networks addressed with IPv6?

IPv6 works great at scale, just route everything everywhere, stick with unicast & anycast, and don't roll large L2 domains. Multicast is entirely unnecessary aside from the small amount needed for ND/RA between host and ToR.

And, for operations, a routed IPv6 network without NAT, VXLAN, or VLANs spanned across switches is much easier to troubleshoot and generally has fewer moving parts to fail.

0 comments

geofft6y ago

Yes, I am. The sort of network architecture you describe works great, but unless I'm seriously misunderstanding the article (which maybe I am!), all the use cases where you'd want VXLAN or Wireguard on IPv4 are incompatible with such an architecture on IPv6.

I will grant that IPv6 + ULAs + BGP + flat networks is easier to think about than IPv4 + 10.0.i++.0/24 + BGP + flat network because you have basically unlimited ULAs, but "You have to pick a unique 10.0.i++.0 for each machine, and that's annoying" doesn't seem like the primary thing the article is trying to forget. If you can do a hierarchical routed IPv6 network, you can almost certainly do it with IPv4, too.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjauer6y ago0 comments

> If you don't have multicast support at all in your network infrastructure, which as the article points out isn't common to have on cloud networks,

Huh? Are you assuming large flat L2 networks addressed with IPv6?

And, for operations, a routed IPv6 network without NAT, VXLAN, or VLANs spanned across switches is much easier to troubleshoot and generally has fewer moving parts to fail.

0 comments

geofft6y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse