[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Ivan Pepelnjak ipepelnjak at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 20:40:01 CEST 2011
> Are there any RFCs describing the above requirements? Couldn't find any. I guess you're not interested in RFC 1794 ;)) [...] > So this looks like "host" spec could be the starting point of new spec? I would say LB MUST conform to "host" spec. Those load balancers that provide routing functionality MUST conform to "router" specs. > 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? Load balancing between IPv6 clients and IPv6 and IPv4 servers (6-to-6 and 6-to-4) is a short-term MUST. 4-to-6 is a longer-term SHOULD. Mixed v4/v6 servers behind the same outside virtual IPv6 address is a SHOULD. Support for X-forwarded-for (or equivalent) header in HTTP is a MUST (otherwise the servers lose any visibility into who the client is). I don't think you can specify anything more than this. Ivan
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]