[141811] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob V)
Sat Jun 11 23:49:26 2011
From: "Rob V" <rob@ipninja.net>
To: "'Matthew Reath'" <matt@mattreath.com>,
"'Randy Carpenter'" <rcarpen@network1.net>
In-Reply-To: <0c666a923e1de05c17d3ed4296830ed3.squirrel@mail.mattreath.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:48:20 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Reath [mailto:matt@mattreath.com]
> Sent: June-11-11 11:22 PM
> To: Randy Carpenter
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.
>
> Standard IP routing, the default gateway of the network can decide based
> on a route entry whether to send it to the cable modem or send it to the
> firewall.
If the source block is not routed via both connections it won't work without
NAT. I had this same problem trying to use my ISP's native v6 over PPPoE
and maintain a tunnel as backup since it was still pretty flaky as they were
testing it at the time ... no way a residential ISP is going to route 3rd
party blocks for all their customers, and no chance the tunnel provider was
going to route the block my ISP assigned me either ... with no NAT66 in
Tomato/ddWRT/etc it was 100% impossible to have multiple connections ...
