I simply don't have time to read this thread in the middle of an IETF meeting, but I do suggest reading the following draft, which is stuck in the RFC publication queue waiting for a reference to be published (i.e. it is fully approved). http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat... Regards Brian Carpenter On 06/11/2013 11:30, Matthew Poole wrote:
A "small company wanting to play big company" question: My employer is investigating options for network redundancy as having a functional internet connection is critical to our operation. We're not in any position to even try applying for PI IPv4 space from APNIC (only using a /28), and are in no way close to being ready to think about going to pure IPv6. Clients push to us, so we need to have functional DNS as well as link fail-over. We also have multiple public-facing servers offering the same services, so moving to *shudder* NAT or some kind of port proxying isn't an easy option (clients' internal bureaucracies to get firewall ports opened, client configuration, blah blah blah).
So, my question, what are our operational course of action for multi-homing when becoming an AS on the global tubes isn't on the cards?
Cheers