[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ivan Pepelnjak
ip at ioshints.info
Mon Jun 20 19:00:22 CEST 2011
The minimum you need for load balancers is IPv6 host support, you might add OPTIONAL support for routing protocols. Obviously they need to support 6-to-4 and 6-to-6 load balancing ... are there any RFCs covering those? Ivan > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Jan Zorz @ go6.si > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:33 PM > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document... > > > >>> Getting more and more off-topic, but regardless of what purists might > >> think, load balancing is a crucial function (until TCP stack and/or > socket > >> API get fixed - read: not likely) and at least some of them do and will > >> use some sort of NAT to do their job. > >> > >> I think this is the key point. While providers are not putting up > content > >> on IPv6 for this reason, it is an issue. > > Ok, so I see some consensus on the question, if load balancers are > needed in RIPE-501 foloowup document or not. The answer is yes. > > My question is, should we create new hw category for this or should we > put it in any of existing category? > > Merike, Sander, I'm inviting you back to drawing board to fix this > request :) > > /jan
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]