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: matthew zeier
  • Date: Mon Jun 04 02:21:55 2007 



william(at)elan.net wrote:
.

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


For me, this seriously comes down to ease of deployment. I don't have to duplicate servers just for v6. Infact, all I have to do is add a v6 vip and I'm done.

Oh, and it lets me roll v6 out in a production manner, HA and all.

I do agree that the traffic level is nearly insignificant but the fact that my vendor supports it and I don't have to manage yet another system, makes my life easier.


- mz