Sent from my iPad
On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <ach...@forthnet.gr> wrote: > > Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30: >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEY<dstick...@optilian.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 ? >>> >> When you talking about "two DSL lines", I assume this is mainly for >> office / residential environment to have redundancy and/or increase >> uplink availability. >> >> In this environment, BGP exchanges with uplink ISPs for multihoming >> usually is not an option. One reason maybe cost, another reason maybe >> ISP doesn't like to setup BGP with a DSL customer. At least in my >> case, reason #2 always prevent my customers to setup BGP with uplink >> ISPs. >> >> As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise, my >> experiences to resolve this needs at this moment is leveraging NAT66, >> as what we did in IPv4 world. I use FreeBSD+PF and Juniper >> NetScreen/SSG to do NAT66 in several different locations, and they all >> works as expected so far. >> >> Some people don't like NAT especially NAT66, but to be realistic that >> does work, and works well in terms of providing redundancy over two >> DSL lines for office / residential needs. >> >> -- >> Michel~ >> >> >> > Although i generally hate NAT, multihoming must be the only (or at least the > most important) reason why NAT66 has to be standardized. > Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts. > There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as effective and much simpler. Owen > -- > Tassos >