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?
pgp2Q7o2t21SV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
