[rhelv6-list] IPv6 adoption with RHEL6 (and GNU/Linux in general)
thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net
Wed Jan 12 19:18:21 UTC 2011
Leinweber, James wrote :
> It's worse than ip6tables, the IAB and IETF hate NAT, refuse
> to define NAT66, and Really Want to return to the end-to-end
> transparency of the 1980's as their v6 model. See e.g.
> RFC-5902 from July 2010 for their most recent thinking.
Very interesting read, thanks for the pointer.
> NAT fans who are faced with rolling out v6 should probably
> be looking at RFC-4193 unique local addresses (format
> FD+40 random+16 subnet+64 host bits) to meet their
> private / unroutable address needs.
I've got a bunch of OpenVPN links with OSPF deployed on top them to
interconnect many remote locations in a private and redundant way
(think WAN database interconnections etc.), so I'll definitely be using
networks from the fc00::/7 space for that.
> None of this helps Matthias's topology dilemma, alas. Some
> of us have it easier - I currently only have 1 layer of
> internal routing, so if I add v6 subnets on my firewalls,
> I'm good. I've already got my 2607:f388:1084::/48 divied
> up and routed externally, so I'm getting closer to production v6.
I'll hopefully be lucky enough to build a new infrastructure from
scratch soon, and want to implement IPv6 from day one. My biggest
problems is that my large scale IPv6 experience is non-existing (on
network gear with BGP, with Quagga, with VRRP, etc.), meaning that there
will be lots of trial and error for that setup. It's clear to me that
not all companies feel this is worth the effort as of now.
Thanks for sharing all of your thoughts and experience, much
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 14 (Laughlin) - Linux kernel 220.127.116.11-72.fc14.x86_64
Load : 0.00 0.09 0.37
More information about the rhelv6-list