4 ms·
What do you mean? IPv6 PI is common and easy to get; there's no big difference between IPv4 and IPv6 there.
by Sesse__ 2y ago
What do you mean? IPv6 PI is common and easy to get; there's no big difference between IPv4 and IPv6 there.
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y agoI've gone through dozens of applications for a PI block and all been turned down. Heard the same from most of the networking people I know of. One even had their company become a LIR just so they could lock down a block. Outside of Europe I don't know anyone not FAANG sized that managed to get it done in the last few years. In my dealings with small to medium sized biz, I usually go the SDWAN route to aggregate and balance in IPv4 space instead as it is MUCH easier to get it done from an ISP.
- Sesse__ 2y agoHuh, I have one for my personal home network :-) Granted, that is in RIPE. As long as you're multihomed, how can they turn it down?
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y agoMultihoming is broken for most people in IPv6 space. It's stupid easy in IPv4. https://blog.ipspace.net/2010/12/small-site-multihoming-in-ipv6-mission/ https://blog.ipspace.net/2010/12/small-site-multihoming-in-i...
- Sesse__ 2y agoYou lost me at “multiple per-interface NAT rules […] with some load balancing trick” being “stupid easy”… But BGP+PI is indeed how multihoming is supposed to work, both in IPv4 and IPv6. (Well, in IPv6, you can put two prefixes on-link and do poor man's multihoming that way, which you cannot reliably in IPv4.) Of course, if you define “it cannot be BGP+PI”, then indeed it's probably harder, but if you exclude the intended solution, obviously there's no intended solution.