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 <dstickney@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