[154914] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT66 was Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Mon Jul 16 23:12:59 2012
To: Grant Ridder <shortdudey123@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:56:29 EST."
<CAPiURgV+E-FLg_dkKq97P1OkhBWuZGiRVQd1GvY-Uh=09omREQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:12:01 +1000
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <CAPiURgV+E-FLg_dkKq97P1OkhBWuZGiRVQd1GvY-Uh=09omREQ@mail.gmail.com>, Grant Ridder writes:
>
> If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
> through?
>
> -Grant
It still doesn't change the arguement. You still need to have flow
based routers or you may choose the wrong egress point and if you
need NAT66 you have 4+ upstream connections though two of them may
be tunnels. You also need a protocol to keep the HA pair state
tables in sync.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
