Try http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat... This is approved for publication as an RFC but is stuck waiting for a normative reference to be published. The short version is: if you're too small to get a /48 PI prefix from APNIC and persuade both ISPs to announce it, get different prefixes from two ISPs and run both simultaneously. (Personally I am a serious fan of shim6, but it's dead in the water because of broken firewalls that do not understand the IPv6 extension headers needed for shim6.) Regards Brian On 11/03/2014 23:25, Jonathan Spence wrote:

Hi all, I started a thread on the IPv6 group on LinkedIn in regards to this but....

What is the best way to provide redundant connectivity to SMBs with IPv6? Using v4 with NAT is easy with most routers but v6 is harder. Shim6 seems to be a good idea but looks to be a dead duck. People in that thread were advocating full AS and BGP but I don't think that is easy for most SMBs unless their IT support is top notch and trained (which lets face it, most don't even know how to screw in a lightbulb). It also may mess up global routing tables causing them to get much bigger.

Any ideas?

Jonathan Spence Chief Executive Officer Fixed: +64 9 9510448 Mobile: +64211055634

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog