On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@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