[83118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /8 end user assignment?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Fri Aug 5 05:06:30 2005
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 02:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
To: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <42F3294C.3030103@nosignal.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>> will the v6 access really be enough to require LB's? or are they there for
>> other reasons (global lb for content close to customers, regionalized
>> content) perhaps reasons which would matter 'less' in an initial v6 world
>> where you were getting the lb's fixed by their vendor? (or finding a
>> vendor that supports v6 lb?)
>
> I am a keyboard jockey for an international online retailer; I picked our
> loadbalancer solution[0] because of the things it did other than balancing
> load per se, including cacheing, tcp and ssl session offloading, and content
> compression. Yes, you could do much of this with apache/mod_proxy but not
> 'as well'.
>
> Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's not an
> option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6 enquiries.
LVS which rather a lot of people use for load balancing supports ipv6 and
has since 2002
PLB pure load balancer (*BSD) supports ipv6.
Since Redhat Enterprise Server currently meets all of our layer-3 load
balancing needs we haven't evaluated other commercial load balancers in
about a year.
>
> [0] Redline Networks E|X, now owned by Juniper of Borg.
>
> -a
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu
GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
