IPv6 transition work was RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

matthew zeier mrz at velvet.org
Mon Jun 4 06:16:32 UTC 2007



william(at)elan.net wrote:
.
>>
>> 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
> 

For me, this seriously comes down to ease of deployment.  I don't have 
to duplicate servers just for v6.  Infact, all I have to do is add a v6 
vip and I'm done.

Oh, and it lets me roll v6 out in a production manner, HA and all.

I do agree that the traffic level is nearly insignificant but the fact 
that my vendor supports it and I don't have to manage yet another 
system, makes my life easier.


- mz




More information about the NANOG mailing list