[83120] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /8 end user assignment?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Fri Aug 5 05:15:40 2005
In-Reply-To: <17139.10881.44935.585770@roam.psg.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:13:13 +0200
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 5-aug-2005, at 10:59, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's
>> not an
>> option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6
>> enquiries.
> could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
> volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
> of course, then you would be committed to serving v6. and if loads
> increased before you got vendor support for balancing, you would not
> be in a pretty place.
Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be
load balanced by putting a good number of AAAA records in the DNS?
Since most IPv6-capable browsers have decent support for trying
multiple addresses, the problem of having a server be unavailable but
still be in the DNS wouldn't be as bad as in IPv4.
Obviously when people running these services refuse to consider IPv6
because they can't load balance doesn't provide much incentive to
load balance vendors to upgrade their stuff.
