On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Changming Liu wrote: > As one of the top 3 firewall/NAT/IDP vendors, our experience with load > sharing is very bad.
For what it's worth, I've also argued stronlgy host against load balancing. I'm copying the major concern below. ================== Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:44:38 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-01 comments [...] Fundamental objection --------------------- The document assumes that it is always desirable to do load-sharing with the equivalent routers. I don't agree with this assumption. If the router's capacity is sufficient so that it can forward all the traffic sent by its nodes, there is actually very little need for load sharing. On the contrary -- sharing load between routers produces difficult-to-debug scenarios when some destinations (which are distributed to some routers) fail in mysterious ways while others work just fine. Due to that, I, as an operator, would not wish to enable load-sharing on hosts except when I specifically require that kind of functionality. So, I'd propose that this document does not describe that the hosts MUST share the load, but rather describes how the hosts MUST behave if they wish to share the load -- and if turned on by default, require that there MUST be a way to toggle load balancing off. A difficult issue to settle might be whether to recommend (and if so, how strongly) to enable load-sharing by default. ======================= -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
