From: matthew zeier (no email)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2007 - 02:16:32 EDT
william(at)elan.net wrote:
.
>>
>> I suppose, but certain places like Mozilla, would be dead in the water
>> without load balancers. Citrix got their act together and shipped 8.0
>> with v6 vips on the front talking to v4 servers on the backend.
>
> While I understand that some place may want to put policies that every
> v4 part must be exactly same as v6 I think more realistic view is better.
> You should have servers ready to answer v6 but look at your traffic -
> is it really necessary to add v6 to your load-balancer or would it be
> ok to just have AAAA record pointing to particular system (even if 7
> others are available) because the amount of traffic makes more sense.
> Now when v6 traffic increase there would be more pressure for vendors
> to make load-balancers support v6 as well and you'd not have problems
> then. But if you're still thinking about v6 load-balancers, then I
> recommend taking a look at http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/IPVS
>
For me, this seriously comes down to ease of deployment. I don't have
to duplicate servers just for v6. Infact, all I have to do is add a v6
vip and I'm done.
Oh, and it lets me roll v6 out in a production manner, HA and all.
I do agree that the traffic level is nearly insignificant but the fact
that my vendor supports it and I don't have to manage yet another
system, makes my life easier.
- mz
|
|
|