Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-00.txt

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 21:35:47 -0700

On 4/23/12 23:00 , Michael Newbery wrote:
> 
>> 5.2.  Routing
>> 
>> In a dual stack network, IPv4 and IPv6 routing protocols operate 
>> quite independently and in parallel.  The common routing protocols 
>> all exist in IPv6 versions, such as OSPFv3 [RFC5340], IS-IS 
>> [RFC5308], and even RIPng [RFC2080] [RFC2081].  For trained staff,
>> 
>> 
> 
> Is it worthwhile to mention the potential advantage of IS-IS here?
> Offset of course with the cost of converting the IPv4 routing to use
> IS-IS as well if that is not already what you do. This is simply to
> point out the situation, rather than to recommend.
> 
>> 6.  Load Balancers
>> 
>> It is to be expected that IPv6 traffic will initially be low, i.e.
>> a small percentage of IPv4 traffic.  For this reason, updating
>> load balancers to fully support IPv6 can perhaps be delayed;
>> however, such
>> 
> However, anyone deploying a load balancer is also probably relying on
> it providing fail-over protection and so needs to be aware that by
> deferring IPv6 support they lose that as well, not just the
> load-balancing.

sorry for the late reply but what of the major commercial on open-source
load balancers does not support ipv6 in released code?

imho, as a DC operator, stacking stateful tranforms is expensive and
more sensitive to the perturbations of the larger number of elements. If
it causes me to lose access to the source IP in the process then it's
still more effort to debug te activity of the v6 customers.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 12:42:35 +0100

...
> load balancers does not support ipv6 in released code?

Indeed, but that is not the same thing as an IT manager *deploying*
the latest released code. What we are saying is don't worry too
much until you see the IPv6 traffic building. IMHO that goes for
the failover argument too.

    Brian
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 11:56:02 +0000

> the failover argument too.

Given me a little bit of a break Brian. I've got f5's in production
running ipv6 code from 2 years ago. netscalar users do too. so do A10
users ha-proxy etc.

Eventually you've got to deploy ipv6 services to your customer by
deploying ipv6 facing services not by stacking hackjob transition
technologies in front of production load balancers. If someone wants to
do the later, hey that's cool, but it doesn't seem like a solid
recommendation for us to offer.