[131053] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Tue Oct 19 18:58:55 2010
To: Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:53:21 PDT."
<C8E36161.636F0%zaid@zaidali.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:58:21 +1100
Cc: "Jonas Frey \(Probe Networks\)" <jf@probe-networks.de>,
Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <C8E36161.636F0%zaid@zaidali.com>, Zaid Ali writes:
>
> On 10/19/10 2:37 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> >
> > So stick a router in parallel and just route IPv6 over it.
> > So stick in a IPv6->IPv4 proxy and send that traffic through the
> > load balancer.
>
> Nah considering v6 traffic is small I have a simpler solution, I prefer to
> set up a temporary web service running v6 native outside LB's and offer
> experimental service, that way I can keep yelling at Vendors to get their
> act together because if they don't hear user requests then v6 will not be a
> priority for them. The last thing you want to go is build a kluge and stay
> silent.
>
> Zaid
I wasn't saying don't complain.
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
of being overloaded. A proxy should be able to handle a much bigger
load as it is just shuffling bits.
You should be able to just turn on the IPv6 interfaces on your
existing web servers and have them service request over IPv4 and
IPv6. That way it doesn't matter about which transport the client
picked, they get the same level of service.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
