North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted
- From: william(at)elan.net
- Date: Mon Jun 04 02:16:37 2007
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
[email protected]
|