Re: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

IPsec, yes, this could be a problem, but as I know the load balancers keep all the session (security association then ?) to the same
"server", as otherwise, the database access, bank transactions, and others, will be broken.

Anyway, may be there is another way to do load-balancing using anycast, but not sure if the actual architecture supports it, may be
again it will depend on how the load-balancers implement it.

Regarding if ISP or Enterprise, and ISP "hosting" services (so offering load balancing for large number of users), could be always
considered an Enterprise ... but I feel that the boundary between both is not clear enough among both design teams.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
To: <micklesc@aol.net>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document


> 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
>

*********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
12-14 May 2003 - Pre-register at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
Interested in participating or sponsoring ?
Contact us at ipv6@consulintel.es