Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Tue Jun 14 14:44:24 CDT 2011


On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:04:11 EDT, Ray Soucy said:
> 
>> A better solution; and the one I think that will be adopted in the
>> long term as soon as vendors come into the fold, is to swap out
>> RFC1918 with ULA addressing, and swap out PAT with NPT; then use
>> policy routing to handle load balancing and failover the way most
>> "dual WAN" multifunction firewalls do today.
>> 
>> Example:
>> 
>> Each provider provides a 48-bit prefix;
>> 
>> Internally you use a ULA prefix; and setup prefix translation so that
>> the prefix gets swapped appropriately for each uplink interface.  This
>> provides the benefits of "NAT" used today; without the drawback of
>> having to do funky port rewriting and restricting incoming traffic to
>> mapped assignments or UPnP.
> 
> Why do people insist on creating solutions where each host has exactly one IPv6
> address, instead of letting each host have *three* (in this case) - a ULA and
> two provider-prefixed addresses?

and a link-local



More information about the NANOG mailing list