|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <ihprk2$g39$1@dough.gmane.org> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:33:48 -0800 To: David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:10 AM, David Freedman wrote: >>> >>> >> And if your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it, you lose a LOT >> of logging data, geolocation capabilities, and some other things if you >> go that route. >> >> Owen >> >> >> > > I can't imagine an LB vendor who would sell a v6 to v4 vip solution who > wouldn't provide a way to inject the v6 addr in to the request as an > additional header? I suggest a naming-and-shaming is in order > Sure, but, if you're not prepared to parse, log, and deal with that header, then, you lose, right? Note I said "IF your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it..." Owen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |