Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:51:47 -0700



Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz () forthnet gr> wrote:


Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEY<dstickney () optilian com>  wrote:
  
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ?
    
When you talking about "two DSL lines", I assume this is mainly for
office / residential environment to have redundancy and/or increase
uplink availability.

In this environment, BGP exchanges with uplink ISPs for multihoming
usually is not an option. One reason maybe cost, another reason maybe
ISP doesn't like to setup BGP with a DSL customer. At least in my
case, reason #2 always prevent my customers to setup BGP with uplink
ISPs.

As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise, my
experiences to resolve this needs at this moment is leveraging NAT66,
as what we did in IPv4 world. I use FreeBSD+PF and Juniper
NetScreen/SSG to do NAT66 in several different locations, and they all
works as expected so far.

Some people don't like NAT especially NAT66, but to be realistic that
does work, and works well in terms of providing redundancy over two
DSL lines for office / residential needs.

--
Michel~


  
Although i generally hate NAT, multihoming must be the only (or at least the most important) reason why NAT66 has to 
be standardized.
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.

There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as effective and much simpler.

Owen

--
Tassos



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]