What I guess have not been clear on is the fact that loadbalancers for
many people are an integral (and required) part of the *architecture*
(and not just something u need to distribute load), and as such, are a
component that must support v6 for the *service* to then be able to
support it
:: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been fairly responsive lately.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is where all Yahoo related abuse issues should go to
(and it will be read and acted upon). If you submit phishing reports
through phishing related channels (ie http://www.castlecops.com/pirt)
they might be acted upon
:: So, if you, or the original poster, is going to move
:: ${important_resource}
:: around ip-wise keep in mind that your ${important_thing} may have to
:: answer to more than 1 ip address for a period much longer than your
:: tuned
:: TTL :(
::
:: Thanks all for the responses. I do understand
:: Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I
:: don't know if this makes a difference.
::
:: I have a very strong feeling that part of the lack of content providers on
:: IPv6 is due to the lack of multihoming.
::
:: Whilst this thread is open... perhaps someone
:: All in all, site traffic engineering is NOT going to be an easy problem
:: to solve in a hop-by-hop forwarding paradigm based on clever
:: manipulation of L3 locators. Architecturally, what one would really
:: like is to not worry about the traffic engineering problem per-se.
:: Rather, what
:: We also like that fact that we can change our
:: announcements so others can only use prefix X through transit provider Y
:: and not transit provider Z, unless transit provider Y goes away (those 2
:: are obviously not the only uses of such policies, but are just examples).
::
::
::
