Re: /8 end user assignment?

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Joe Abley wrote:

> On 4 Aug 2005, at 21:51, Simon Lyall wrote:
>
> > Creating a seperate instance or path though all that for IPv6 is
> > probably
> > going to be hard if it is all setup for everything to go one way.
>
> I know people who have set up such things using reverse proxies (listen
> on v6 for query, relay request to v4 server farm via existing load
> balancer). No need to touch the production v4 server infrastructure to
> bring this live, although there's a need for a production AAAA record,
> if you want to try it with real clients. There was a time when
> www.isc.org was hosted on an OS which had no (or problematic, I forget)
> v6 support, and that's how we did it.

This sort of thing is what I was thinking would get things rolling for
some of the content providers. Something 'short term' while you work out
some of the transit issues, technical issues with apps/os/network/blah...
but something toget some v6 traffic aside from ping :)

> With layer-2 load balancers and v6-capable servers, attaching the
> service address to just one machine in the cluster might do the trick,
> as a way of trying stuff out.

yup, another option as well, provided the LB's support v6, which is
apparently problematic :(

> As has been mentioned, the likely load of v6 traffic is low. However,
> experience with the growth characteristics would presumably trigger
> business cases and requests to vendors if/when appropriate; no
> experience means less opportunity to plan and budget. How do you
> (proverbial, general, plural) really know what demand there is for v6
> access to your services unless you turn it on and find out?

and how do the problems get worked out without deployment?