[139431] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Apr 7 22:59:13 2011
In-Reply-To: <4D9E27A5.3040108@forthnet.gr>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:51:47 -0700
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnet.gr>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnet.gr> wro=
te:
>=20
> Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEY<dstickney@optilian.com> w=
rote:
>> =20
>>> 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 ?
>>> =20
>> When you talking about "two DSL lines", I assume this is mainly for
>> office / residential environment to have redundancy and/or increase
>> uplink availability.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> --
>> Michel~
>>=20
>>=20
>> =20
> Although i generally hate NAT, multihoming must be the only (or at least t=
he most important) reason why NAT66 has to be standardized.
> Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
>=20
There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as effe=
ctive and much simpler.
Owen
> --
> Tassos
>=20
