[ipv6hackers] subject labels

[Richard Barnes]

Well, there are some people thinking about the problem
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-03>

There's even an RFC
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296>



On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2011, at 1:31 PM, Tim wrote:
>
>>
>>> All joking aside, i don't think this list has lived up to its name
>>> yet.  I will give it a little while longer before sending a mail to
>>> the list asking how to unsubscribe (ha!)
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On perhaps a more constructive note, I'd be interested in a discussion
>> on where things could go wrong with IPv6 implementations.  And by
>> that, I mean networking stacks and firewalls.  Where are the RFCs
>> vague/confusing?  What policy details are likely to be overlooked by
>> JoeSecurity's v6 firewall product?
>
>
> Someone mailed me this today...
>
>> My current barrier to v6 is knowing what I'm meant to do to have more than one provider with v6 without BGP and a range allocation.
>>
>> With v4 it's simple.  The internal network is private and the router just flips NAT to the other providers IP/32.
>>
>> With BGP and a range allocation I can see that's not an issue, you just announce your existence.
>>
>> But is the idea that all small businesses who just want to have two providers for reliability reasons, are going to have to have an allocation and be running BGP?
>
> Frankly my answer was not very complimentary about the current set of IPv6 specs and RFCs. If you are looking for gaping holes in the IPv6 story then this is unfortunately one of them.
>
> Geoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipv6hackers mailing list
> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
> http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers