[155358] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Mon Aug 6 11:20:50 2012
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:19:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120806151112.GA59201@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> However, it causes me to ask a differnet question, how will this work in
> IPv6? Does anyone make a dual-uplink IPv6 aware device? Ideally it
> would use DHCP-PD to get prefixes from two upstream providers and would
> make both available on the local LAN. Conceptually it would then be
> easy to policy route traffic to the correct provider. But of course the
> problem comes down to the host, it now needs to know how to switch
> between source addresses in some meaningful way, and the router needs to
> be able to signal it.
There are working groups in the IETF looking into how to make this work,
"homenet", "v6ops" and a few others. After a while one runs into protocol
extensions or behavioural changes and things become non-trivial.
> As messy as IPv4 NAT is, it seems like a case where IPv6 NAT might be a
> relatively clean solution. Are there other deployable, or nearly
> deployable solutions?
Yes, there are a lot of possible options. Feel free to participate in the
process. There is nothing that is deployable right now though.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
