On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Tim Starling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/02/11 08:13, George Herbert wrote: >> [...] >> Ah, yes. That problem. "We're" using that hacked up Squid 2.7, right? >> >> I'm not as involved as I was a couple of years ago, but I was running >> a large Squid 3.0 and experimental 3.1 site for about 3 years. >> >> Squid wiki says we need any 3.1 release (latest have some significant >> bugfixes): >> >> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/IPv6 > > It's not necessary for the main Squid cluster to support IPv6 in order > to serve the main website via IPv6. > > The amount of IPv6 traffic will presumably be very small in the short > term. We can just set up a single proxy server in each location (Tampa > and Amsterdam), and point all of the relevant AAAA records to it. All > the proxy has to do is add an X-Forwarded-For header, and then forward > the request on to the relevant IPv4 virtual IP. The request will then > be routed by LVS to a frontend squid. > > MediaWiki already supports IPv6, so that's it, that's all you have to > do. It would be trivial, except for the need to handle complaints from > users and ISPs with broken IPv6 routing.
Broken IPv6 routing will be evident to the providers and users, because nothing will work. I would expect few complaints to us... (perhaps naively...) As a general question - is there any reason not to move to Squid 3.1 and just be done with it that way? > What will be more difficult is setting up IPv6 support for all our > miscellaneous services: Bugzilla, OTRS, Subversion, mail, etc. Many of > those will be harder to set up than the main website. Yes. 80/20 rule... -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
