On 7/16/11 8:40 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
I would say LB MUST conform to "host" spec. Those load balancers that provide routing functionality MUST conform to "router" specs.
Well, we can take the spec of host and tweak it - as by definition that we use "A host is a network participant that sends and receives packets but does not forward them on behalf of others." LB can't be just host :) Now we just need to see which routing protocols are commonly used in load balancers and what requirements to get from Router spec section.
We could put all *NAT* and L4+ stuff in optional requirements. Probably the goal is to describe IPv6 load balancer, that would work in IPv6 only environment and IPv6 only clients and servers. Am I wrong?
Load balancing between IPv6 clients and IPv6 and IPv4 servers (6-to-6 and 6-to-4) is a short-term MUST. 4-to-6 is a longer-term SHOULD.
Maybe we can write this requirements as wording, not as RFC pointer...
Mixed v4/v6 servers behind the same outside virtual IPv6 address is a SHOULD.
Support for X-forwarded-for (or equivalent) header in HTTP is a MUST (otherwise the servers lose any visibility into who the client is).
this is also non-RFC requirement... Let's see what I can do. /jan