Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Apr 7 21:51:47 CDT 2011


Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz at forthnet.gr> wrote:

> 
> Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEY<dstickney at optilian.com>  wrote:
>>   
>>> 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 ?
>>>     
>> When you talking about "two DSL lines", I assume this is mainly for
>> office / residential environment to have redundancy and/or increase
>> uplink availability.
>> 
>> In this environment, BGP exchanges with uplink ISPs for multihoming
>> usually is not an option. One reason maybe cost, another reason maybe
>> ISP doesn't like to setup BGP with a DSL customer. At least in my
>> case, reason #2 always prevent my customers to setup BGP with uplink
>> ISPs.
>> 
>> As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise, my
>> experiences to resolve this needs at this moment is leveraging NAT66,
>> as what we did in IPv4 world. I use FreeBSD+PF and Juniper
>> NetScreen/SSG to do NAT66 in several different locations, and they all
>> works as expected so far.
>> 
>> Some people don't like NAT especially NAT66, but to be realistic that
>> does work, and works well in terms of providing redundancy over two
>> DSL lines for office / residential needs.
>> 
>> --
>> Michel~
>> 
>> 
>>   
> Although i generally hate NAT, multihoming must be the only (or at least the most important) reason why NAT66 has to be standardized.
> Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
> 
There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as effective and much simpler.

Owen

> --
> Tassos
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list