nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ipv6 for the content provider
From: David Freedman <david.freedman () uk clara net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:10:58 +0000
And if your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it, you lose a LOT of logging data, geolocation capabilities, and some other things if you go that route. Owen
I can't imagine an LB vendor who would sell a v6 to v4 vip solution who wouldn't provide a way to inject the v6 addr in to the request as an additional header? I suggest a naming-and-shaming is in order -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Group
Current thread:
- Ipv6 for the content provider Charles N Wyble (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Jack Carrozzo (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Dale W. Carder (Jan 26)
- RE: Ipv6 for the content provider George Bonser (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider David Freedman (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- RE: Ipv6 for the content provider George Bonser (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Bill Stewart (Jan 28)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Owen DeLong (Jan 28)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider George B. (Jan 29)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Jack Carrozzo (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider LorĂ¡nd Jakab (Jan 26)