RE: load-balancing [RE: zeroconf draft]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED) wrote:
> If 1,000,000 customers are using ipv6 the operators 
> will implement native ipv6, I beleive.

Certainly, but the 3GPP operator 1) probably cannot implement v6
within a couple of months (even being optimistic in any case) of
observed high load [otherwise why wouldn't it have done it in the
first place], 2) cannot easily predict how many customers will use
IPv6.  This probably depends on which kinds of phones the customers
will buy.  The number could be 100, 1000, 10000 or whatever.  The 
operator has to be able to deploy additional servers quickly if it 
turns out just one won't be enough.
 
> I am not ruling out load balancing, but I want to think about
> what the precise requirements are. 
> 
> Not having load balancing is not the same as to say that
> you can only have one server, or if it is, then I agree that 
> we should have some form of load balancing.

As I clarified earlier, a conservative summary of this would probably
be:

You must be able to seamlessly deploy multiple tunnel servers to be
able to support a larger amount of tunnel end-points if need arises.

i.e., there must be a way to deploy multiple tunnel servers.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings