[139422] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tassos Chatzithomaoglou)
Thu Apr 7 17:08:01 2011
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:07:49 +0300
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnet.gr>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik_jxFABE8ky+v5tUoPdz9AtYJsKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.
--
Tassos
