Are there any plans to add UDP support?

This would be great to have.

Ditto. UDP support would be great.

It sounds like NLB passes through source IP - does that mean outbound flows are through the IGW?

There must be some magic happening somewhere, because otherwise outgoing packets would have the wrong source address.

You can use direct server return to manipulate the Ethernet frames so that packets don't travel back through the load balancer on the way to the parent switch.

That generally requires config on the serving hosts, which wasn't mentioned in the setup. I think I saw a reference to adding hosts with a different port number than the service port as well. For people in EC2-VPC (not classic), all their traffic is going through an Amazon NAT anyway, perhaps this new service is setting up translations there. (Note all the references to VPC, and never a mention of EC2-classic)

Direct Server Return works at layer 3 not layer 2, its routing and encapsulation - IP in IP, GRE etc.

You can do it at layer 2 as well, but it requires that the load balancer have an interface on the same broadcast domains as the hosts.

I am confused at how this would work. Can you elaborate? Also broadcast domain is a layer 3 construct.

Any idea how long for GovCloud?

Do you have a support POC? I'd reach out to them as they should be able to provide you with a roadmap update. If you're not sure who that is, you can reach out to me at kozlowck at amazon.com.

Hello fellow GovCloud user, would love to compare notes if you're game. [email protected] :)

I got to say, asking about GovCloud and with that email address your post sounds like a terrible spear phishing attempt :)

Pretty sure that's the entire point :)

Was it? neom has posted that email in the past.

Ain't no dark arts over here. Just a buddy trying to fix cities. <3

Is there any intent to add TLS termination? That’s a dealbreaker for us switching from the classic load balancer. Otherwise this looks really awesome, thanks!

I don't think they can add TLS termination because of the way it's implemented. NLB runs on Layer 4 - the transport layer where TCP/UDP run on. TLS technically runs on top of the transport layer.

That’s kind of the answer I was expecting, just hoping it wasn’t the case. From the marketing material they really want you to move, but not having a solution to offload tls makes it impossible for us. And it worries me to see the CLB getting effectively deprecated with it an alternative

ALB can term TLS for h2 and wss: https://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/ sounds like that's what you might want?

Unfortunately we are currently on a custom TCP-based protocol (we're in the game space). But yes, this is more incentive for us to consider h2 or wss.

I'm hopeful AWS will follow this up with ACM supporting SSL certs on instances, so you can run a LetsEncrypt equivalent on each instance, providing TLS end to end encryption

Huh? It's no different than ELB.

There is no Security Group for NLB, how is that reasoned?

that threw me for a bit of a loop as well. This means that responsibility for doing ACL whitelisting at the edge is now moved from the actual edge, to the security groups on the actual servers responding to request, right?

That's do-able and all, but I kind of didn't hate the old paradigm of having an extra layer there.

One way to think of NLB is that it's an Elastic IP address that happens to go to multiple instances or containers, instead of just one. Everything else stays the same.

Yeh, it's easy to use it like that for now. I hope they update it later on though. Seems like an missing feature in their otherwise nice firewall rules setup.

Demo page states "Your browser may keep a connection open for a few seconds and re-use it for a reloaded request. If it does, you'll get the same target", but when I attempted to abuse the power of F5, I was alternated between ice cream and bumblebee.

If you are going to look at it, attempt time - ~04:50 UTC, remote address from 88.119.128.0/20 network

Same, got a different one each time.

Browsers typically use a few connections to load a page so that it can load faster. Each of those threads has a different source port, and thus may route to a different target. In Colm's demo, it depends which thread your browser uses when requesting the part including the CSS which decorates the object. In my Chrome on Mac I see 6 TCP connections to the demo NLB

tcp4 0 0 192.168.100.101.49615 54.69.111.179.80 ESTABLISHED tcp4 0 0 192.168.100.101.49614 54.69.111.179.80 ESTABLISHED tcp4 0 0 192.168.100.101.49613 54.69.111.179.80 ESTABLISHED tcp4 0 0 192.168.100.101.49612 54.69.111.179.80 ESTABLISHED tcp4 0 0 192.168.100.101.49611 54.69.111.179.80 ESTABLISHED tcp4 0 0 192.168.100.101.49610 54.69.111.179.80 ESTABLISHED

Each of those will be routed to the same target, so it's up to your browser to decide which to use for what.

is there a cloudformation template for this demo that i can look at?

I doubt. Unfortunately, CloudFormations lags severely behind...

CloudFormation, CodeDeploy, and ECS all support NLB today :) I used the console to create the simple demo though, so I don't have a template to recreate it. Sorry!

Good as I'm tired spending days writing Customer Resources!

CloudFormation provides support for Network Load Balancer.

Check the 'Type' property mentioned in the CloudFormation templates reference in public documentation http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuid...