= Сообщение: 6729 из 7402 ============================================= IPV6 = От : Victor Sudakov 2:5005/49 04 Aug 21 22:12:18 Кому : Dmitry Protasoff 04 Aug 21 22:12:18 Тема : Two ISPs and backup for a home network (dual-homing) FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=2:5005/49+610ab0eb На : area://IPV6?msgid=2:5001/100.1+60e19d4e = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== Ответ: area://IPV6?msgid=2:5001/100.1+611d8954 ============================================================================== Dear Dmitry,
04 Jul 21 13:51, you wrote to me:
DP>>> For example - rerouting traffic via VPN to get thru RKN's DPI. DP>>> Real life scenario :)
VS>> Why would you need NAT for that? Get a VPN/tunnel provider who VS>> offers a global /64 or /56 or even a /48, like HE does.
DP> With he.net you'll loose access to local google caches and to local DP> CDNs. With ipv4 I can forward only blocked subnetworks via VPN, with DP> ipv6 and without NAT66 I can't do that.
Well, it's a valid point of course. The protocol designers are not required to forsee the acts of malicious morons breaking the Internet intentionally. But they could have provided for a simple failover mechanism.
OTOH, when I have to circumvent RKN, I prefer to start a new browser session where all traffic goes via a VPN. Yes, I lose access to local google caches and to local CDNs, but be it so.
DP>>> Yeah, but you can have "host" part the same for several uplinks DP>>> and change prefix only on NPTv6 gateway. It's the best ipv6 can DP>>> offer for you, sorry.
VS>> Too bad and a bit unexpected. There are/were rather complex VS>> things like Mobile IPv6 and HMIP, and they have not thought of a VS>> simple failover?
DP> Mobile IPV6 is an operator controlled tool to keep your IPv6 address DP> intact. But you are asking for exactly the opposite solution - to DP> change your IPv6 address.
Not exactly "to change my IPv6 address", but rather provide some simple failover mechanism for multihomed IPv6 hosts. It has just come to my mind: if those multihomed hosts ran some kind of routing protocol (OSPFv3 or a simple equivalent thereof) there would be absolutely no problem selecting the working gateway.
DP>>> It adds more complexity and cannot be implemented easily in DP>>> userland across multiple OSes.
VS>> OK, let's start anew with a simple setup. If there are two VS>> routers in a home LAN advertising different global prefixes, and VS>> one of them goes offline, will IPv6 end hosts detect that and VS>> remove the corresponding addresses from their configuration?
DP> Yes but you'll still have single routing table and timeout for client DP> to remove dead ipv6 address from interface and routing table is large DP> enough to be unacceptable for general use.
So, we need some simple routing protocol with keepalives, running both on end hosts and the router?
