Re: IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

["william(at)elan.net" <william () elan net>]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, matthew zeier wrote:

> John Curran wrote:
>
> > Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding
> > in ISP's backbones and it hasn't been major revenue for
> > the traditional router crowd.   Net result is there hasn't
> > been much IPv6 attention in that market...
>
> I suppose, but certain places like Mozilla, would be dead in the water 
> without load balancers.  Citrix got their act together and shipped 8.0 with 
> v6 vips on the front talking to v4 servers on the backend.

While I understand that some place may want to put policies that every
v4 part must be exactly same as v6 I think more realistic view is better.
You should have servers ready to answer v6 but look at your traffic -
is it really necessary to add v6 to your load-balancer or would it be
ok to just have AAAA record pointing to particular system (even if 7
others are available) because the amount of traffic makes more sense.
Now when v6 traffic increase there would be more pressure for vendors
to make load-balancers support v6 as well and you'd not have problems
then. But if you're still thinking about v6 load-balancers, then I
recommend taking a look at http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/IPVS

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william () elan net