North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: /8 end user assignment?
- From: Christopher L. Morrow
- Date: Sat Aug 06 14:24:29 2005
Oh how I relish the firebomb email while on vacation trick :)
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 5-aug-2005, at 10:59, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> Until such devices support IPv6, to reiterate Steve's point, it's
> >> not an
> >> option to consider approaching connectivity suppliers with IPv6
> >> enquiries.
> > could you comment on christopher's observation that, given the likely
> > volume of v6 traffic, you would not have a v6 load worth balancing?
> > of course, then you would be committed to serving v6. and if loads
> > increased before you got vendor support for balancing, you would not
> > be in a pretty place.
--snip dns multi-AAAA tricks---
> Obviously when people running these services refuse to consider IPv6
> because they can't load balance doesn't provide much incentive to
> load balance vendors to upgrade their stuff.
I think most of the problem gets to:
"Vendor XYZ, we need ipv6 support in your hardware loadbalancer product."
"Customer ABC, hrm, COOL! when are you deploying v6?"
"Vendor XYZ, well, we aren't ready YET, but perhaps when we get down to
item 234 on our priorities list we will be ready, say 5 years from now?
provided other projects don't slip and marketting doesn't throw another
monkey wrench in my project list :("
"Customer ABC, sure...w e'll get right on that then.... wanna see a
shiney new lb product fact sheet?..."
without immediate needs and immediate testing/work I doubt vendors will
push in this new feature :( I may be cynical though...