[AmericanChopper]

I guess it’s a matter of preference, but I strongly prefer security groups over ACLs, which I don’t use at all. Even if only from a compliance perspective, a security group is equivalent to a host firewall (which personally helps me with PCI - no need for iptables and windows firewall). Whereas an ACL is a bit harder to make that case with. I also find them easier to audit.

[javadocmd]

I like using ACLs for my coarse-grained "this subnet is allowed to talk to this subnet" rules, and security groups for everything finer-grained. Maybe I'm over-cautious, but I don't want one rogue security group opening up a tunnel to sensitive subnets.

[ajbourg]

Yes, this is one of the best reasons to use network ACLs. (You can also achieve this with routes)

I think the idea is that separate teams with different responsibilities can manage the two different layers. Your app team may manage the security groups but the security team manages network ACLs which limit what can go into or come out of a subnet.

[AmericanChopper]

That’s a reasonable design pattern. For my usecase we have those segmentations in place at the VPC level, so ACLs wouldn’t add anything for us.

[dvtrn]

I'm slightly inclined to agree, it's one of those YMMV scenarios. What happened to me was there was some unholy combination of both going on, duplicating each other, in some cases weaving in and out of each other with some bastard frankenstein topology of route tables to nowhere...

those were frightening times. Entire services would fall over, dogs and cats living together