[141930] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Jun 14 13:42:29 2011
To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:04:11 EDT."
<BANLkTi=kcPBpLG4TEC1CUBB3c8-_4vtmQRKd7WmWfqirWscufw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:38:27 -0400
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1308073107_2718P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:04:11 EDT, Ray Soucy said:
> A better solution; and the one I think that will be adopted in the
> long term as soon as vendors come into the fold, is to swap out
> RFC1918 with ULA addressing, and swap out PAT with NPT; then use
> policy routing to handle load balancing and failover the way most
> "dual WAN" multifunction firewalls do today.
>
> Example:
>
> Each provider provides a 48-bit prefix;
>
> Internally you use a ULA prefix; and setup prefix translation so that
> the prefix gets swapped appropriately for each uplink interface. This
> provides the benefits of "NAT" used today; without the drawback of
> having to do funky port rewriting and restricting incoming traffic to
> mapped assignments or UPnP.
Why do people insist on creating solutions where each host has exactly one IPv6
address, instead of letting each host have *three* (in this case) - a ULA and
two provider-prefixed addresses?
--==_Exmh_1308073107_2718P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFN95yTcC3lWbTT17ARAu2WAJ9KFNq9oI66IDyHp4rCrDkmVqwTUwCg4YsO
5xHddXRP2ht3heRlGlV7QHQ=
=wxv+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1308073107_2718P--
