Ole Trøan did try to resolve multihoming in "Home networking" 14 years ago.
Brian E. Carpenter did try to resolve multihoming in "Site Multihoming by IPv6
Intermediation" 20 years ago.
Both failed for different reasons. Both were doing it outside of 6man WG.
Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Petach via NANOG <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2026 18:29
> To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]>
> Cc: Marco Moock <[email protected]>; Matthew Petach
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: IPv4 flag day
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 00:32 Marco Moock via NANOG
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Am 17.06.26 um 08:29 schrieb Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG:
> > > Has any CPE vendor implemented the redundancy NPTv6 scheme (with all
> > IPv6 features) that Matthew mentioned for NAT44?
> >
> > No, as normal CPE devices are used by home users. They don't need that.
> > Business users buy professional devices and use BGP or other routing
> > protocols for real redundancy.
> >
>
>
> *facepalm*
>
> No, my small business with 15 people doesn't buy Juniper routers with two
> BGP upstreams and pay ARIN for an ASN and provider independent IP space.
>
> But it *does* still want to be able to get work done on the Internet when ISP
> A
> goes down by using ISP B.
>
> You seem to be denying the existence of all the small businesses in the world.
> Given that Google estimates there are 200 to 400 million enterprises with less
> than 50 employees worldwide, that's a pretty big chunk of the business world
> to ignore.
>
> Or are you suggesting that 400 million small businesses should get their own
> ASNs and provider independent IPv6 space, and use BGP to gain redundancy
> for their businesses?
>
> (talk about driving a demand for more router RAM for the DFZ core! ;-P )
>
>
> > > Reminder: 6man WG makes all possible efforts to block NPTv6.
> >
> > It already exists, IIRC Cisco IOS supports that.
> >
>
>
> Too bad every small business using edgeOS or Vyatta or routerOS is left out--
> no NPTv6 or NAT66 for them. But that was some pretty good shilling for Cisco
> there. ;)
>
> In all seriousness, I hope we're coming to the realization that there's a big
> use
> case that is not currently well supported on the V6 world, and telling
> hundreds
> of millions of small businesses to add to the BGP-speaking core routing tables
> is probably *not* the right answer. Unless of course you want Geoff Huston to
> do a NANOG talk entitled "What The Hell Just Happened?" with a hockey-stick
> shaped graph showing the number of ASNs in the v6 routing tables. :/
>
> In summary: there are still technical hurdles to deploying IPv6 that we
> created
> through our decisions long ago that need to be solved before we can start
> talking about sunsetting IPv4.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> > --
> > Gruß
> > Marco
> > Muell und Spam bitte an [email protected]
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/64
> > HPVUSE2EXJH664UAY3T4YJX2G3VQET/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/TXYK36S
> DIONPF72NKIEY6XHR7DDCBD7G/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/2HBTM24IDBLF6MP2OJIUYA4V4ELVGXJO/
