Re: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document

[MicklesCK@aol.com]

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.


Cleve...

In a message dated 2/3/2003 3:40:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, Alain.Durand@Sun.COM writes:

> Subj: Re: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document 
>  Date: 2/3/2003 3:40:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
>  From: Alain.Durand@Sun.COM
>  To: MicklesCK@aol.com
>  CC: itojun@iijlab.net, mrw@windriver.com, jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>  Sent from the Internet 
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.