Posted Jul 23, 2011 19:07 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: IPv6 NAT by baldur
Parent article: IPv6 NAT
I know that there is always a link-local address. It doesn't matter.
For example, on HP networked printers allow to manually assign only one address. And Windows does not allow to select address precedence using GUI, so it's extremely easy to get one congested link and one lightly loaded - and no way to fix it. Even setting an interface metric (which still doesn't solve problems in reality) requires to use DHCPv6 and SLAAC.
Even something as simple as ULA does not work well.
>What address would you put in DNS if you were using NAT with multiple uplinks?
The local address. It works fine for intra-organization purposes. In fact, it works GREAT when it's coupled with Microsoft AD.
>If we are talking about servers the best option is PI.
Which is expensive and doesn't scale.
>As would it be in a solution that includes NAT. But there is actually an alternative: You can use mobile IPv6.
No I cannot. Mobile IPv6 is not even supported in Linux properly, never mind all those embedded networked devices. Oh, Windows Vista/7 also don't support it.