[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Jan Zorz @ go6.si jan at go6.si
Thu Jul 14 10:39:38 CEST 2011
On 6/21/11 8:08 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: >> From the "outside" perspective, a load-balanced service implemented >> with one or more redundant load balancers _MUST_ look like an IPv4 >> _OR_ an IPv6 address (where OR is not exclusive, but AND is not >> strictly necessary) distributing sessions to IPv4 or IPv6 inside >> nodes. It _SHOULD_ be able distribute sessions arriving to an >> outside address (IPv4 or IPv6) to a mixed cluster of IPv4 _AND_ >> IPv6 addresses. Hi, OK, we need to get out to the mailinglist next revision od RIPE-501 followup document somewhere in next week. LB spec is the thing, that is not done yet, as there are N+1 opinions (N being the number of people I talk to about this matter :) ) Are there any RFCs describing the above requirements? Question is - how "deep" we need to go with the mandatory part of the spec? As far as network is concerned, LB is a host that receives connections and magically re-distributes them to end hosts. It's not a router and it breaks end2end. How to specify that? :) > > How a LB device implements its magic (L4 passthrough with NAT, L4 > termination, L7 proxy, whatever other tricks) is irrelevant (and > seems there are no "obvious" RFCs documenting it). What is MANDATORY > is that it supports connections from IPv6 clients to IPv4 and/or IPv6 > servers and from IPv4 clients to IPv4 and/or IPv6 servers (see last > sentence in the previous paragraph) to enable all possible migration > scenarios. So this looks like "host" spec could be the starting point of new spec? > > However, I would recommend that for 6-to-4 functionality, we > _RECOMMEND_ the load balancer adheres to the RFC6146 (stateful NAT64) > - we should discourage (but not forbid) vendors from doing homebrew > 6-to-4 translation when a standard exists specifying how to do it. We could put all *NAT* and L4+ stuff in optional requirements. Probably the goal is to describe IPv6 load balancer, that would work in IPv6 only environment and IPv6 only clients and servers. Am I wrong? All this "put the balancer to serve v6 clients from v4 servers" rubbish makes this task nearly impossible. > > On the IPv6 protocol side, the very minimum requirement is adherence > to IPv6 host behavior. Some LB designs work without significant > support for routing - single inside and outside /64 with RA-generated > default route on the outside - or they could support some routing > protocols. Those should (in my opinion) be made _OPTIONAL_. So, "host" with added some routing options. > > Oh, and I never claimed I know anything about load balancers, so I > might be totally wrong ;) Ivan We know you ;) Cheers, /jan
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]