On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:22:04AM -0600, Todd T. Fries wrote:
| Ironically, IPv6 cannot solve this scenario either, since by definition
| using ipv6 tends to require a tunnel which would naturally fall to the
| carped pair which would have the same constraints as the v4 side with
| regards to sending to/from the internet, yes?
|
| If you presume native v6, however, cudos, it should permit each fw to have
| its own ip and carp a third :-)
Yeah, I was (fortunately) in an (unfortunately) rather unique
situation where I did get native IPv6 from my ISP (where I worked, at
the time).
So I'd disagree with your 'by definition' (given the counterexample),
but sadly there is not enough native v6 around and we have to resort
to nasty hacks (tunneling). As much as I appreciate the likes of
SixXS, I really wish they were not required anymore ;)
*still dreaming*
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
