3 ms·

Policy routing works exactly the same on IPv6 as on IPv4. People misusing NAT or internal addresses to handle policy routing are the problem. I've no idea why

Policy routing works exactly the same on IPv6 as on IPv4. People misusing NAT or internal addresses to handle policy routing are the problem. I've no idea why SLAAC would prevent you from doing policy routing - the prefix is deterministic. In IPv4 I presume you guessed who each host is by some sort of DHCP registration. For IPv6 you would use either NDP, or perhaps even way more secure SEND enhancement with PKI instead. Of course static assignment still just works, including in NDP/SEND. (e.g. by MAC address or per link) RIPng/OSPFv3/IS-IS/EIGRP can also tell other hosts which route you prefer packets to return by with better granularity and dynamically. This works even better with v6 since global addresses are always available.

yardstick 5y ago
The above doesn’t work if you are dealing with client devices that don’t support routing protocols (Ie phones, laptops, tablets, CCTV systems, PCs etc - everything except routers and servers) and especially with BYOD devices. Also perhaps I missed something in your reply, but policy based routing - the definition I have of it - encompasses more than routing different subnets via different WANs. Ie routing based on destination port, IP DSCP flags, WAN utilisation etc rather than just by source. And as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the cost and complexity of running routing protocols is a non-starter for many small and/or low margin businesses. Think retail or fast food or fuel etc.