What protocols are being developed to Multihome without using BGP in IPv6?

****In case that question is not understood I am providing more information****
Reference
http://www.theipv6experts.net/2011/ente ... ming-ipv6/

My current setup
2 Gateways (Load balancing and redundancy) (VLAN 1-3 to one and VLAN 4 to the other)
2 Mikrotik RB (Using VRRP) (First RB is master for vlan 1-3 and second is Master for VLAN 4)

I have specific vlans going out specific gateways. Unless a router or a Gateway fails. Then everything is automatically rerouted.

SO with IPv4 this is not an issue. With IPv6 it will become an issue. One of my providers is offering IPv6 addresses now the other will be in a few months.

NAT rulez! looking forward to it

Hi,

I Confirm that IPv6 NAT is the only reasonable way to do IPv6 multihoming without BGP.

I do it (for last 2 years) with OpenBSD that integrates native IPv6 NAT .

Note to developers :

• Linux can do this with latest versions (3.7) of kernel.
  For earlier versions , a running process handling nf_queue target seems to be the only reliable way (Sample : http://turing.suse.de/~krahmer/ip6nat/ )

IPv6 NAT in RouterOS, it can just be fantastic ! : it's the only feature that let me keep OpenBSD as main Router (For personal use, I mean).

Regards,

Christophe.

IPv6 NAT will be in linux kernel 3.7. Probably stateless (1:1).

Hello Guys,

Im trying to implement small-site , IPv6 multi-homing using NPTv6( Network prefix translation) defined in IETF6296 [URL http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296] for a single internal network using a linux machine running Fedora 17 with kernel version of 3.8.x that support IPv6 network prefix translation. alike implementation is available here[http://backreference.org/2012/10/07/pol ... ment-24890], the different of my work from that one is that, i use ipv6 for addressing, NPTv6 for translation instead of traditional ipv4 nat , i use only single internal network and only fail over mode is a required functionality ( no need for load balancing).

please guide me if you are able to do so.
I appreciate your help in advance.

It is far better to run a dual stack if you can help it. One reason is when it comes time to shut ipv4 down and migrate completely to ipv6 now you have to reconfigure everything. Another reason is that using any kind of translation has the potential to break applications that don't work well with it. If you provider doesn't support ipv6 and you want to start using it you can subscribe to a tunnel broker. I use sixxs.net and he.net with mikrotik and linux and everything just works. Just my 2 cents.

Hi,

It is far better to run a dual stack if you can help it.

Yep, I think in that thread, we are all dual stack , problem is not here ...

If you provider doesn't support ipv6 and you want to start using it you can subscribe to a tunnel broker. I use sixxs.net and he.net with mikrotik and linux and everything just works.

I agree with that, my 2 Wan dsl connections have a SixXS tunnel (despite my providers provide native IPv6 ... -Free or OVH in France- , a /64 or /56 prefix by Wan access but mainly without reverse DNS).
Do you have several Wan accesses with several ISP (for load balancing) , and with several ipv6 prefixes ?

If you are yourself an ISP provider with BGP enabled, no such a problem ...
But in a private way, it seems to be difficult to loadbalance traffic between 2 residential WAN accesses without IPv6 NAT.

Peer to Peer provided with IPv6 is really a good thing I really love it, but cannot apply on all cases.

kardo's way , is espectially interesting

My 2cents.