quietly....

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Wed Feb 2 16:28:08 CST 2011


In message <EFC767DA-2CBB-4094-B8D2-553E9EAA2990 at sackheads.org>, John Payne wri
tes:
> 
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> >=20
> > On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, John Payne wrote:
> >=20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >>=20
> >>> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address =
> consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
> >>>=20
> >>> It does not solve any other problem(s).
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> That's a bold statement. Especially as you said NAT and not PAT.
> >
> > NAT, PAT, whatever... I'm willing to back it up.
> 
> NAT provides a solution to, lets call it, enterprise multihoming.  =
> Remote office with a local Internet connection, but failover through the =
> corporate network.
> In IPv4 this would likely be done with PAT, but I'm looking forward to =
> being able to do something similar with NAT66 (or whatever it ends up =
> being called) without blowing out my internal policies or having to =
> maintain multiple addresses on each end point.=
 
Or you could give them all two addresses and set the address selection
policy so that when the local connection is up those addresses are
used and when it is down the other addresses are used to source
traffic.  The router just send a RA with a prefix lifetime of zero
when it looses upstream connectivity for that prefix putting all
addresses on that prefix into deprecated state.

Yes this is different to IPv4 and it doesn't require NAT66 to work.

Just something to think about.  IPv6 is different to IPv4.  It has
different capabilities.  It offers different solutions to old problems.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org




More information about the NANOG mailing list