3 ms·
That's possible, but my understanding is that NPTv6 is strongly discouraged. Part of the point of IPv6 is do away with NAT and the problems caused by it. I was
by justin_oaks 4y ago
That's possible, but my understanding is that NPTv6 is strongly discouraged. Part of the point of IPv6 is do away with NAT and the problems caused by it.
I was hoping there was a better way.
- Arnavion 4y agoYes, that is correct. But not having NAT is the same as having addresses that depend on the subnet prefix.
- GICodeWarrior 4y agoNPTv6 is different from IPv4 NAT and doesn't really have the same issues. A different solution I've seen proposed for networks with multiple ISPs is to advertise both public prefixes to the network and let each client endpoint figure out which egress to use. This seems like a worse idea though. The most official approach is to get your own public IPv6 prefix and work with your ISPs to BGP route that to you on both links. However, home and small business ISPs generally don't offer this.
- Dagger2 4y agoUse the GUA prefix from the main ISP. During failover, retract it and switch to the GUA prefix from the second ISP. Prefix translate any stragglers that don't switch to the new prefix for whatever reason. For active/active you can distribute both prefixes, but you don't get much control over which network clients pick. You can do the same thing here though: NAT only the outbound connections that you specifically want to steer onto the other ISP. This way you avoid most of the problems of NAT.