3 ms·
>Yes there are ways to mitigate (ULA, mDNS, DNS, DHCPv6, etc) but now you're introducing additional complexity that didn't exist before into the network when I
by Arnavion 4y ago
>Yes there are ways to mitigate (ULA, mDNS, DNS, DHCPv6, etc) but now you're introducing additional complexity that didn't exist before into the network when I keep hearing how Ipv6 is supposed to reduce complexity.
ULAs are neither "additional complexity" nor "reduced complexity" compared to IPv4 NAT - they're the exact same. Both require you to decide on a private prefix, set up DHCP / DNS / static IPs within that prefix, and set up translation for that prefix.
>Other issue I can think of off the top of my head is how to deal with an organization that would requires multi-WAN fail over or load balancing?
Exactly the same, ULAs.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- snuxoll 4y agoYou're talking about using NPTv6 with ULA's. Remember, IPv6 is explicitly designed to allow having multiple addresses on an interface - you can have a ULA for internal connectivity and a GUA for everything else. This is the situation I settled on for my home, because having redundant ISPs means a lot of headaches and I obviously do not qualify for a PI allocation. Every machine on the network gets a ULA address that remains stable, and to deal with ISP failover I have a script on my Mikrotik router to change advertised prefixes when the primary ISP goes down. Took more work than my v4 NAT setup, and I hope more network vendors build-in support for the WAN failover bit in particular because every consumer/prosumer kit I've used does absolutely nothing for v6 traffic (I literally could not have done it without Mikrotik scripting or rolling my own router because no off-the-shelf distro like opnsense/m0n0wall/etc have support for this).