Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow ipv6_cidr_block to be assigned to peering_connection #15145

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

martinssipenko
Copy link
Contributor

@martinssipenko martinssipenko commented Jun 7, 2017

I've encountered an issue when trying to use destination_ipv6_cidr_block with vpc_peering_connection_id. I believe this fixes #14564.

I'm not sure about whether destination_ipv6_cidr_block should be allowed together with other types (nat_gateway_id, instance_id, network_interface_id).

Also, I could not find any acceptance test for this functionality, so I've not added any new tests to cover this. I'm happy to add tests, however I might need guidance.

@stack72
Copy link
Contributor

stack72 commented Jun 7, 2017

Hi @martinssipenko

Please can you add an acceptance test that covers the new behaviour and also make an addition to the documentation?

Thanks so much

Paul

@stack72 stack72 added enhancement provider/aws waiting-response An issue/pull request is waiting for a response from the community labels Jun 7, 2017
@martinssipenko
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @stack72

I've added acceptance test and successfully ran in locally against my AWS account.

Regarding documentation - not sure what should be added, as by reading docs I assumed that the behavior I've implemented would work. Only thing that comes to mind is adding a note to state the fact that destination_ipv6_cidr_block can be used only be used together with gateway_id, egress_only_gateway_id and vpc_peering_connection_id.

But perhaps instead we should implement support for the remaining instance_id and network_interface_id? Don't think it makes sense adding IPv6 support for nat_gateway_id, since no NAT is used for IPv6 (egress only gateway is used instead of NAT for IPv6).

Let me know what you think..

@martinssipenko
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stack72 any updates on this?

@martinssipenko
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this Pull Request in favour of hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#879

@martinssipenko martinssipenko deleted the bug-14564 branch June 15, 2017 15:48
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 8, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 8, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement provider/aws waiting-response An issue/pull request is waiting for a response from the community
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

aws_route_table: cidr_block required in route
2 participants