nanog mailing list archives
RE: Ipv6 for the content provider
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:22:06 -0800
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
Relying on IP address for geolocation is actually quite ridiculous though I do realize that many people seem to believe that you can map an IP address to the physical location of the originator of the data, at least to the country level, but I suppose some people will sell you anything. We haven't seen any problem with logging data so far in our testing.
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)
- RE: Ipv6 for the content provider George Bonser (Jan 26)
- Re: Ipv6 for the content provider Owen DeLong (Jan 26)