RE: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document

["Cleve Mickles" <micklesc@aol.net>]

I've asked existing L4 vendors about this over the past year
and even though this is widely done in the IPv4 world, the vendors
don't have any plans to add this IPv6 functionality until market
forces dictate it.

From what I see today, the only alternative is to use DNS
to load balance.  We know using DNS to load balance won't
give us the best performance.  We also will probably run into
the same UDP packet size limits with IPv4 DNS rotors.  It
does however gives us something to work with until we have
a critical mass of IPv6 capable servers which we can then go
to the vendors and ask them to give us the functionality.

NATv6 is a possible solution and the WG may decide that is the best
recommendation in the long run.  The vendors will probably end up doing
their own proprietary solutions as I have not seem many interoperable L4
load balancers to date.  I would assume the work on NATv6 would be done
in the IPv6 WG.

Whether we describe this in the ISP document or Enterprise document is up
to the WG.  At the interim meeting the WG wanted a datacenter description
in both, at last IETF the status of whether to include datacenters in the
ISP scenarios was inconclusive.  In any event, no authors have come forward
to work on the section so it will not be included unless the WG feels it
should
be retained and someone steps forward.

Cleve...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Alain Durand
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 3:40 PM
> To: MicklesCK
> Cc: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino; Margaret Wasserman; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ;
> v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document
>
>
>
>
> MicklesCK wrote:
>
> > We do not have an author for the datacenter
> >section.  I propose we drop the additional datacenter
> >section since, as I pointed out at the interim meeting, there
> >would be overlap with the Enterprise draft.
> >
> One point I would like to raise about IPv6 in the datacenter
> is load balancers. They basically are NAT boxes dispatching the traffic
> to a number of servers. Are we going to need NATv6 afterall?
>
> Anyway, I think this concern is specific to the big datacenter
> and should be addressed in the ISP scenario.
>
>     - Alain.
>
>
>
>
>