[111444] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 5 19:23:49 2009
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <04044622-0790-45EF-A93D-EED1D17B10D3@hopcount.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:21:12 -0800
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Feb 5, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 5-Feb-2009, at 06:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> to be fair, there are 3 options for multihoming today in v6 (three
>> sanctioned by the IETF, not ordered in any order, not including
>> discussion about goodness/badness/oh-god-no-ness of these)
>> 1) multiple addresses on each device, one per provider
>> 2) shim-6
>> 3) HIP (still in development, as I recall)
>
> 4) Obtain PA space and do what you're doing with v4.
>
> 5) Obtain PI space and do what you're doing with v4.
>
> (4) is problematic because filtering long prefixes in v6 seems to be
> more energetic than it is in v4. (5) is problematic if you don't
> qualify for PI space.
>
Note, however, that the bar for (5) is VERY low if you are
multi-homed. I would not be opposed to lowering it even
further, but, there does not at this time seem to be community
consensus to do so.
Owen
