nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ipv6 for the content provider
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:33:48 -0800
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:10 AM, David Freedman wrote:
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. OwenI 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
Sure, but, if you're not prepared to parse, log, and deal with that header, then, you lose, right? Note I said "IF your servers behind the LB aren't prepared for it..." Owen
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)