Comment by bigfatkitten
5 days ago
> BTW what's the trouble with multi-homing? Can't an interface have two separate IPv6 addresses configured on it, the same way as IPv4 addresses?
Because it breaks your network when that router goes away. Your switch ACLs, firewall rules, and DNS records all become invalid because they contain addresses that no longer exist, that your devices continue trying to reach anyway.
Had to move away from pfSense due to this. It just wasn't possible to stop it giving my devices its public IP as DNS.
So every time I got a new prefix, machines would lose connectivity, usually until I rebooted them.
Switched to OpenWRT which respected my ULA.
Ah, I understand what you likely mean saying "small site multihoming": not a Web site (where it would be trivial), but e.g. a small office.
But with multi-homing you would need to actively test which of your uplinks has Internet access anyway, won't you? And you would have to react somehow when one of your uplinks goes down.
It's easiest to do by abstracting your site away. Make it use a LAN, and do port-forwarding and proxying through a box that knows about the multiple uplinks, and handles the switch-over when one of them goes down. I don't see how it might be easier with IPv4 than with IPv6.
I still assume that you don't want the internals of your office network directly accessible via the public Internet, even when you easily can; VPNs exist for a reason.
In the IPv4 world, it's easy. Just use NAT, and forward everything over your preferred bearer. Have your router ping 8.8.8.8 or something periodically from that WAN interface to verify reachability. If your preferred link goes down, make your backup link the primary route, clear your NAT translation table, and your local devices remain mostly oblivious that anything happened.
> It's easiest to do by abstracting your site away. Make it use a LAN, and do port-forwarding and proxying through a box that knows about the multiple uplinks, and handles the switch-over when one of them goes down. I don't see how it might be easier with IPv4 than with IPv6.
In the IPv6 world, this is pretty much what you have to do. A whole lot of extra complexity and expense that you didn't have previously.
Extra complexity and expense? You're describing basically the same thing they are. A router that does NAT and decides which link to send the packets over based on connection testing.
And IPv6 has the benefit of a significantly simpler 1:1 NAT.
1 reply →
You should be using dynamic DNS and firewall rules should be on the subnet boundary in this scenario, any decent firewall (including referee PFsense/OpnSense) support ACLs that follow IPv6 address changes.
> You should be using dynamic DNS
That doesn't solve the problem. DNS remains broken until each and every device, assuming VERY generously that it is capable of dynamic DNS at all, realises that one of its prefixes has disappeared and it updates its DNS records. With DNS TTL and common default timeouts for prefix lifetime and router lifetime, that can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 30 days.
> and firewall rules should be on the subnet boundary in this scenario, any decent firewall (including referee PFsense/OpnSense) support ACLs that follow IPv6 address changes.
This requires you to assign one VLAN per device, unless perhaps you've got lots of money, space, and power to buy high end switches that can do EVPN-VXLAN so that you can map MAC addresses to SGTs and filter on those instead.
> each and every device ... updates its DNS records.
What device on your office LAN should maintain its own DNS records? Advertise your own caching DNS server over DHCP(6), give its responses a short TTL (10 sec), make it expire the relevant entries, or the whole cache, when one of your links goes down. I suppose dnsmasq should handle this easily.
It seems that the discussion turned away from a multi-homed setup (pooling the bandwidths of two normally reliable links) to an HA/failover setup (with two unreliable links, each regularly down).
1 reply →
The amount of ignorance in these ipv6 posts is astounding (seems to be one every two months). It isn't hard at all, I'm just a homelabber and I have a dual-stack setup for WAN access (HE Tunnel is set up on the router since Bell [my isp] still doesn't give ipv6 address/prefixes to non-mobile users), but my OpenStack and ceph clusters are all ipv6 only, it's easy peasy. Plus subnetting is a heck of a lot less annoying that with ipv4, not that that was difficult either.
“it’s easy peasy” says guy who demonstrably already knows and has time to learn a bunch of shit 99.9% of people don’t have the background or inclination to.
People like you talking about IPv6 have the same vibe as someone bewildered by the fact that 99.9% of people can’t explain even the most basic equation of differential or integral calculus. That bewilderment is ignorance.
7 replies →
Dude.
The difficulty of setting IPv6 up at your house vs. the needs of a multi-homed, geographically diverse enterprise couldn't be more dissimilar.
I'd lay off the judgment a bit.
9 replies →
I want to send my ssh via my low latency reliable connection, I want to route my streaming via another connection. That’s just a routing rule and srcnat in ipv4
That’s before you go on to using PBR. I want to route traffic with different dscp via different routes.
Ultimately I want the rout g to be handled by the network, not by the client.
IPv4 and nat makes that a breeze.
How is it not a routing rule with ipv6? Firewalls and routers typically support dynamic prefixes (even Vyos, pfSense, openSense do).
7 replies →
> any decent firewall (including referee PFsense/OpnSense) support ACLs that follow IPv6 address changes
In the case of pfSense this is a recent change. It was not supported when I migrated away from it less than five years ago.