Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses)
nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Mon Nov 1 11:07:12 CDT 2010
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 +0000 (GMT)
Tim Franklin <tim at pelican.org> wrote:
> > Surely your not saying "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
> > that the other options just don't make sense" so that all residential
> > users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't
> > break?
> I've seen this last point come up a few times, and I really don't get it.
> If you're multihomed with multiple PA GUAs, yes, you'd want each RA to track its corresponding WAN availability so your devices are using a prefix that has connectivity.
> If you're a single-homed leaf network, why on earth wouldn't you want to generate RAs for your statically-assigned prefix all the time, regardless of the state of your WAN connection?
This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about
people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone
with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal,
stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority
of end-sites on the Internet are residential ones, and that PI can
scale to that number of end-sites. I can't see any other way to
interpret "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough that the other
options just don't make sense".
More information about the NANOG