SV: [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): SV: [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
jonas.lindkvist at trafikverket.se
jonas.lindkvist at trafikverket.se
Mon Jun 20 22:01:55 CEST 2011
Hi, A loadbalancer is a loadbalancer is a loadbalancer..... It should perform the same function in v6 as in in v4. So is there a definition on loadbalancers in general? Do we need to define what layer it´s working on? Regards Jonas >-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- >Från: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] För Sander >Steffann >Skickat: den 20 juni 2011 21:38 >Till: Jan [email protected] >Kopia: ipv6-wg at ripe.net >Ämne: Re: [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document... > >Hi, > >>>>> 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 :) > >Invitation accepted :-) > >The difficult bit is defining 'load balancer'... There are so many >different ways to implement this, at different layers. I have seen >layer-7 proxy based load balancers, but also layer-3 direct-routing >ones, with other options in between. Some look like a client to the back >end servers, but others need cooperation from those servers. The sum of >load balancers and back end servers have to look like an end-node to the >outside world, but inside anything (well, almost) is possible. > >So, can we compile a list of load balancing methods and can we specify >what is needed for each method? Do we want to do this? Or can we say >'the server farm as a whole needs to behave like an end-node'? > >But I fully agree: we need to say *something* about load balancers! >Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
- Next message (by thread): SV: [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]