Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

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