[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NAT66 was Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
- Subject: NAT66 was Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
- From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:12:01 +1000
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:56:29 EST." <CAPiURgV+E-FLg_dkKq97P1OkhBWuZGiRVQd1GvY-Uh=09omREQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAD8GWsswFwnPKTfxt=squUmZofs3_-yriHY8o4Gt3W9+x6fVUQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAPiURgV+E-FLg_dkKq97P1OkhBWuZGiRVQd1GvY-Uh=09omREQ@mail.gmail.com>
In message <CAPiURgV+E-FLg_dkKq97P1OkhBWuZGiRVQd1GvY-Uh=09omREQ at mail.gmail.com>, Grant Ridder writes:
>
> If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
> through?
>
> -Grant
It still doesn't change the arguement. You still need to have flow
based routers or you may choose the wrong egress point and if you
need NAT66 you have 4+ upstream connections though two of them may
be tunnels. You also need a protocol to keep the HA pair state
tables in sync.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org