[139449] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Apr 8 12:22:40 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D9F139F.6090804@ttec.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:20:22 -0700
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>> On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong<owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>>>> There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every =
bit as effective and much simpler.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comcast
>>> link and I don't think they're going to be able to do BGP. Their
>>> providers won't do it and their prem equipment doesn't support it =
and
>>> the local IT person doesn't have the know-how to do it. I know that
>>> the typical NANOG member isn't in this category, but this is a
>>> use-case that is very common and outnumbers NANOG members.
>>>=20
>> I have one DSL and one Cable. Neither the DSL provider nor Comcast
>> will do BGP. I do BGP just fine without them doing BGP.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>=20
> Your use case requires at minimum a triangle, ideally a rectangle.
>=20
I'm not sure what you mean by traingle/rectangle other than the same
thing that would be required for any actual multi-homing scenario.
> Along for the ride comes encapsulation, overhead, additional =
bottlenecks and failure scenarios. The payoff has to be worth it and =
that usually means something more than the elimination of napt on =
outbound internet access, such as inbound access to bring-your-own-ip.
>=20
The encapsulation and overhead is small. In general, all of the failures =
experienced to date have been the
result of the underlying DSL or Cable provider.
I guess the value of eliminating the damage caused by =
NAT/NAPT/PAT/whatever you want to call the
abysmal hack so many people choose to live with because they perceive a =
lack of options is a value
each organization has to determine in their environment. In my =
environment, this is a very low
overhead and very low cost way to solve the issue and get reliable =
multihoming with portable
accessible addresses and avoid having to involve silly third parties in =
things like making a VNC
connection back to one of my hosts from the road.
> For anyone to do this requires beyond basic know-how and a willing 3rd =
point. I'll do it for a customer, but it is by no means readily =
available, or even ideal, so lets stop hyping it.
>=20
We can agree to disagree. I think it is readily available and I think it =
is a significantly better solution
than NAT. Ideal? no. Ideal would be when access providers start offering =
cost-effective services that
include dynamic routing. However, until that happens, this is the next =
best thing.
Owen
