[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

> Are there any RFCs describing the above requirements?

Couldn't find any. I guess you're not interested in RFC 1794 ;))

[...]

> So this looks like "host" spec could be the starting point of new spec?

I would say LB MUST conform to "host" spec. Those load balancers that provide routing functionality MUST conform to "router" specs.

> We could put all *NAT* and L4+ stuff in optional requirements. Probably
> the goal is to describe IPv6 load balancer, that would work in IPv6 only
> environment and IPv6 only clients and servers. Am I wrong?

Load balancing between IPv6 clients and IPv6 and IPv4 servers (6-to-6 and 6-to-4) is a short-term MUST. 4-to-6 is a longer-term SHOULD. 

Mixed v4/v6 servers behind the same outside virtual IPv6 address is a SHOULD.

Support for X-forwarded-for (or equivalent) header in HTTP is a MUST (otherwise the servers lose any visibility into who the client is).

I don't think you can specify anything more than this.

Ivan