On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org 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):
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...