Hi Daniel, all IPv6 multihoming ideas are very theoretical today. None of them is ready to use. Shim6 looks very good, but it requires support on both a client and a server side. As you can guess, there is only experimental support for some operating systems. Microsoft and Apple doesn't support it.
A one possible solution I have found is based on a network prefix translation (NPTv6 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-nat66-12). Using NPTv6 you can do multihoming that is very similar to multihoming based on IPv4 NAT. I haven't found any commercial product that supports it, but you can use an implementation for Linux (map66 http://sourceforge.net/projects/map66/). Assembling map66 with some other scripts (to detect link failure) you can have what are you looking for. On 4/7/11 11:58 AM, isabel dias wrote: > have you thought about taking a Cisco training course? I wonder if that kind of knowledge can be learned in any Cisco course today. I don't think so. Tomas > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Daniel STICKNEY <dstick...@optilian.com> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:27:01 AM > Subject: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites > > Hello all, > > 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 ? > > In my research into the proposed solutions I came across this document > "IEEE Communications Surveys - 2nd Quarter 2006, Volume 8, No. 2" > (http://www.shim6.org/path-to-mh.pdf) which seems quite thorough. It > compares routing methods, middle-box methods, and host-centric methods. > It mentions "During the last years, the IETF has made several explicit > or implicit architectural decisions regarding IPv6 multihoming. The main > decision is to go down the path of developing the host-centric > approaches" as well as "Host-centric multihoming, the approach promoted > by the IETF for IPv6 multihoming, [...]". After the comparison of all > host-centric methods it adds " [...], the IETF has decided by the end of > 2004 to foster the SHIM approach." > > This approach looks interesting to me after all the comparisons, though > I'm less familiar with it. I'm interested to hear your real-world > experiences on this topic. > > Thanks, > Daniel >