4 ms·

With five upstream providers you're at the point where you really should have a proper router with it's own address block in front of your network. To put it b

by magila 9y ago

With five upstream providers you're at the point where you really should have a proper router with it's own address block in front of your network. To put it bluntly, people like you are the reason why the IETF resisted standardizing any form of NAT for IPv6. They know that if there's a half-assed solution to a problem which makes the immediate pain go away but imposes negative externalities on the network as a whole, lots of people are going to take it.

gerdesj 9y ago
I actually have two routers with CARP (Dell R320s with 10 NICs) but I don't have an unlimited budget. That is where the real problem lies: the cost of PI. However PI implies an additional internet routing entry (BGP) and of course that implies routing fragmentation. One of the goals of IPv6 was routing simplicity. To reply, rather bluntly to people like you, I am a sysadmin and a business owner who does not have an unlimited budget. I almost certainly have more experience with IPv6 than you, judging by your remarks. I am not combative by nature but please tell me what is the most effective way in your opinion of making best use of IPv6 with multiple links to the internet.
- magila 9y ago
  If you think PI is too expensive, that is an issue between you and your service providers. As a developer of network applications, I have no interest in subsidizing your network management by going through the trouble of supporting NAT or NPTv6. Yes, if everyone used PI it would bloat the routing table, but the vast majority of businesses have no good reason to use PI. Having five providers makes you a special case, one where PI is clearly justified.
  - yardstick 9y ago
    What about a small business with Fibre, and a cellular backup? Both IPv6. How do I ensure my PCs only use the Fibre link until its not working, and only then use Cellular? Right now that just works out of the box with IPv4 and NAT. IPv6 also makes it difficult to plug and play new devices and install new networks. Example: The business needs to separate their Office PCs and their payment terminals (PCI DSS). Easiest way is to plug a firewall behind the existing LAN, and hang the terminals off the new firewall. You can't do that with IPv6 without the original router supporting DHCP6-PD, which it likely won't; or the ISP hasn't routed a large enough subnet to it to delegate smaller chunks. This is a mom and pop business that knows next to nothing about IT and shouldn't be penalised for that. In an ideal world where everyone has full knowledge of their systems and networks and can work with their providers to precisely accommodate their networking needs, IPv6 would work. I don't believe with the limited time, resources, and money we have that it is possible. Ultimately it's down to who caves in first. If the ideal solution requires £$€3000/yr more than another solution, and the other solution solves all the issues the business cares about, why would they spend the money to remove NAT?

by magila 9y ago

gerdesj 9y ago

I actually have two routers with CARP (Dell R320s with 10 NICs) but I don't have an unlimited budget. That is where the real problem lies: the cost of PI. However PI implies an additional internet routing entry (BGP) and of course that implies routing fragmentation. One of the goals of IPv6 was routing simplicity. To reply, rather bluntly to people like you, I am a sysadmin and a business owner who does not have an unlimited budget. I almost certainly have more experience with IPv6 than you, judging by your remarks. I am not combative by nature but please tell me what is the most effective way in your opinion of making best use of IPv6 with multiple links to the internet.

magila 9y ago
If you think PI is too expensive, that is an issue between you and your service providers. As a developer of network applications, I have no interest in subsidizing your network management by going through the trouble of supporting NAT or NPTv6. Yes, if everyone used PI it would bloat the routing table, but the vast majority of businesses have no good reason to use PI. Having five providers makes you a special case, one where PI is clearly justified.
- yardstick 9y ago
  What about a small business with Fibre, and a cellular backup? Both IPv6. How do I ensure my PCs only use the Fibre link until its not working, and only then use Cellular? Right now that just works out of the box with IPv4 and NAT. IPv6 also makes it difficult to plug and play new devices and install new networks. Example: The business needs to separate their Office PCs and their payment terminals (PCI DSS). Easiest way is to plug a firewall behind the existing LAN, and hang the terminals off the new firewall. You can't do that with IPv6 without the original router supporting DHCP6-PD, which it likely won't; or the ISP hasn't routed a large enough subnet to it to delegate smaller chunks. This is a mom and pop business that knows next to nothing about IT and shouldn't be penalised for that. In an ideal world where everyone has full knowledge of their systems and networks and can work with their providers to precisely accommodate their networking needs, IPv6 would work. I don't believe with the limited time, resources, and money we have that it is possible. Ultimately it's down to who caves in first. If the ideal solution requires £$€3000/yr more than another solution, and the other solution solves all the issues the business cares about, why would they spend the money to remove NAT?