This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ripe-atlas@ripe.net/
[atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Andrewartha
jandrewartha at ccgs.wa.edu.au
Tue Jun 12 05:13:24 CEST 2018
On 12/06/18 10:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:44 AM James Andrewartha > <jandrewartha at ccgs.wa.edu.au> wrote: >>> Many would argue that the setup is already broken in many ways and >>> that this is just one bit of breakage that you happened to notice. >> >> So what is your recommendation for IPv6 multi-homing without BGP? > > For the home, homenet protocols. RFC7368? > For small enterprises, draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras, which is > about to become an RFC. > For larger enterprises, draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming And what's the implementation support for these protocols like? Hmm, let's read draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming: > How a host should make good decisions about source address selection > in a multihomed site is not a solved problem. We do not attempt to > solve this problem in this document. Followed by a discussion on possible ways it might work if the routers can react to network changes by sending new RAs, which I love would to know if there are any implementations that can do this. -- James Andrewartha Network & Projects Engineer Christ Church Grammar School Claremont, Western Australia Ph. (08) 9442 1757 Mob. 0424 160 877
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]