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

The minimum you need for load balancers is IPv6 host support, you might add OPTIONAL support for routing protocols.

Obviously they need to support 6-to-4 and 6-to-6 load balancing ... are there any RFCs covering those?

Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of
> Jan Zorz @ go6.si
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:33 PM
> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...
> 
> 
> >>> Getting more and more off-topic, but regardless of what purists might
> >> think, load balancing is a crucial function (until TCP stack and/or
> socket
> >> API get fixed - read: not likely) and at least some of them do and will
> >> use some sort of NAT to do their job.
> >>
> >> I think this is the key point.  While providers are not putting up
> content
> >> on IPv6 for this reason, it is an issue.
> 
> Ok, so I see some consensus on the question, if load balancers are
> needed in RIPE-501 foloowup document or not. The answer is yes.
> 
> My question is, should we create new hw category for this or should we
> put it in any of existing category?
> 
> Merike, Sander, I'm inviting you back to drawing board to fix this
> request :)
> 
> /jan