Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Tomas Podermanski tpoder at
Thu Apr 7 13:51:07 UTC 2011

Hi Daniel,
    all IPv6 multihoming ideas are very theoretical today. None of them
is ready to use. Shim6 looks very good, but it requires support on both
a client and a server side. As you can guess, there is only experimental
support for some operating systems. Microsoft and Apple doesn't support it.

A one possible solution I have found is based on a network prefix
translation (NPTv6 Using
NPTv6 you can do multihoming that is very similar to multihoming based
on IPv4 NAT.

I haven't found any commercial product that supports it, but you can use
an implementation for Linux (map66 Assembling map66 with some
other scripts (to detect link failure) you can have what are you looking

On 4/7/11 11:58 AM, isabel dias wrote:
> have you thought about taking a Cisco training course?

I wonder if that kind of knowledge can be learned in any Cisco course
today. I don't think so.


> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Daniel STICKNEY <dstickney at>
> To: nanog at
> Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:27:01 AM
> Subject: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
> Hello all,
> I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
> (different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
> invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ?
> In my research into the proposed solutions I came across this document
> "IEEE Communications Surveys - 2nd Quarter 2006, Volume 8, No. 2"
> ( which seems quite thorough. It
> compares routing methods, middle-box methods, and host-centric methods.
> It mentions "During the last years, the IETF has made several explicit
> or implicit architectural decisions regarding IPv6 multihoming. The main
> decision is to go down the path of developing the host-centric
> approaches" as well as "Host-centric multihoming, the approach promoted
> by the IETF for IPv6 multihoming, [...]". After the comparison of all
> host-centric methods it adds " [...], the IETF has decided by the end of
> 2004 to foster the SHIM approach."
> This approach looks interesting to me after all the comparisons, though
> I'm less familiar with it. I'm interested to hear your real-world
> experiences on this topic.
> Thanks,
> Daniel

More information about the NANOG mailing list