Hi, On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:47:27PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote: > Maria’s comment about BGP multihoming is correct and reasonable if you have > one > location/few locations and use access circuits that providers are willing to > run BGP over. It doesn’t help if you are trying to arrange low-cost resilient > internet access over low cost FTTx/cellular to, say, hundreds or thousands of > branch offices. It’s one use-case for v4 NAT which, even this NAT denier, > agrees works well.
The goal is to make it low-cost. Otherwise BGP could help, but load balancing incoming traffic does not sound trivial. Another perspective: Instead of two cheap uplinks with speed x, I expect two uplinks with speed x*2 to be cheaper than two uplinks with speed x and BGP. > Is your solution based on any published standard, Jonas, or has it been > implemented as a feature on any commercial small router? No, this is no standard. I submitted a patch to OpenWrt (Router Linux Distribution that can run at x86 hardware and consumer routers) to implement this - the patch that I am using right now. One developer complained about the fact that this is not based on any standard. Another one suggested discussing this concept here. ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
