Re: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Cleve Mickles wrote:
...
> NATv6 is a possible solution and the WG may decide that is the best
> recommendation in the long run.  

Only over numerous dead bodies. As Roy Brabson pointed out, this is
by no means a requirement for server load balancing (and wouldn't
be too helpful if you happened to be using IPSEC or any other
address-sensitive protocol). Also, I can't see why it would become
an IETF recommendation anyway. IPv4 load balancing is widely
implemented without any help from the IETF. We just need to avoid
making it harder.

Certainly, this topic belongs in the enterprise scenario.

    Brian