Re: ipv6 vs. LAMP

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

 On 10/21/2010 3:53 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> Network operations content:
>
>    Will "We're running MySQL and Postgress servers that do not support
> IPv6" be a valid reason for rejecting IPv6 addresses from ISPs or
> hosting providers?
Why not have v4 and v6? There's never a reason to reject v6, only the 
possible need for v4. That being said, MySQL and Postgres often reside 
close enough to the node that needs them that they should have v4 
connectivity (or run v4 over v6 ipsec tunnels).

>    Have any hosting providers network people talked the the DBA people to
> tell them that they might have a problem soon?
Many hosting providers have db on the same server as the web server 
until they reach a certain size, in which case it is on a private 
network behind the content servers and not visible from global routing 
anyways.

>   With RedHat, CentOS, Ubuntu all shipping databases that will not work
> correctly with IPv6, I suspect some people are in for a rude awakening
> next year.  Furthermore, why would Oracle want to 'fix' MySQL?
I doubt anyone will notice that matters.

>   It seems to me that for medium to large content providers IPv6 would be
> great.  Have racks and racks of LAMP servers on IPv6, only a few hosts
> and load balancers would need to be dual stack.  But if the database
> servers must be IPv4 only, then there is zero benefit to add IPv6
> anywhere else.
Only need v4 on the private network behind the content hosts. Even 
geographically distributed applications don't normally make calls across 
public net directly to a database. If the database itself isn't 
distributed, one might consider using vpn's to interconnect the sites, 
but I believe that is a rarity. Perhaps someone with a larger deployment 
can enlighten us.


Jack