[141941] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Tue Jun 14 15:44:53 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <23751.1308073107@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:44:24 -0700
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:04:11 EDT, Ray Soucy said:
>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Example:
>>=20
>> Each provider provides a 48-bit prefix;
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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?
and a link-local=
