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

Hi,

>>>> 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 :)

Invitation accepted :-)

The difficult bit is defining 'load balancer'... There are so many different ways to implement this, at different layers. I have seen layer-7 proxy based load balancers, but also layer-3 direct-routing ones, with other options in between. Some look like a client to the back end servers, but others need cooperation from those servers. The sum of load balancers and back end servers have to look like an end-node to the outside world, but inside anything (well, almost) is possible.

So, can we compile a list of load balancing methods and can we specify what is needed for each method? Do we want to do this? Or can we say 'the server farm as a whole needs to behave like an end-node'?

But I fully agree: we need to say *something* about load balancers!
Sander