SV: [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

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 Zorz@
>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