[97172] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (william(at)elan.net)
Mon Jun 4 02:13:56 2007
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 00:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
To: matthew zeier <mrz@velvet.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4663AA0D.9040409@velvet.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, matthew zeier wrote:
> John Curran wrote:
>
>> Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding
>> in ISP's backbones and it hasn't been major revenue for
>> the traditional router crowd. Net result is there hasn't
>> been much IPv6 attention in that market...
>
> I suppose, but certain places like Mozilla, would be dead in the water
> without load balancers. Citrix got their act together and shipped 8.0 with
> v6 vips on the front talking to v4 servers on the backend.
While I understand that some place may want to put policies that every
v4 part must be exactly same as v6 I think more realistic view is better.
You should have servers ready to answer v6 but look at your traffic -
is it really necessary to add v6 to your load-balancer or would it be
ok to just have AAAA record pointing to particular system (even if 7
others are available) because the amount of traffic makes more sense.
Now when v6 traffic increase there would be more pressure for vendors
to make load-balancers support v6 as well and you'd not have problems
then. But if you're still thinking about v6 load-balancers, then I
recommend taking a look at http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/IPVS
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@elan.net
