> Jeroen Massar wrote: > Nevertheless it would be great if loadbalancers sported IPv6 > as it would mean that they also could handle huge sites like > CNN and Google which would be one way to allow them to upgrade > to IPv6.
Yep. As I have said before, as long as CNN, Google, eBay, eTrade, Yahoo and consorts are not IPv6 enabled (which also means multihomed for these guys) IPv6 does not exist for the general public. The need for load balancers today is not too much performance (a dual P4Xeon with tons of two-way interleaved memory and 533 FSB can deliver something between OC-3 and OC-12 speeds) but with un-interrupted service. For these guys, there is no such thing as taking the server off-line maintenance. The nice thing with load balancers is that they allow to "busy-out" a server in the pool, when all active connections are gone it can be rebooted and/or upgraded. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
