Hurricane Electric's IPv6 Tunnel Broker Forums

Tunnelbroker.net Specific Topics => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: kryptic on March 09, 2010, 05:29:34 AM

Title: /48 routed over two separate tunnels?
Post by: kryptic on March 09, 2010, 05:29:34 AM
Hi
Would it be possible to get the allocated /48 routed over two separate tunnels from the same pop? I would like to achieve some redundancy without the need of a ASN.
I realize that this wouldn't help if the pop goes out of service, but at least the subnet would stay reachable when one of my ISP's are down.

Thanks for a great service!
//Adam
Title: Re: /48 routed over two separate tunnels?
Post by: piojan on March 09, 2010, 07:25:17 AM
You could concider writing a script to test if one ISP is down, updating the tunnel end point at HE and bringing the tunnel up on a link from the second ISP.
Title: Re: /48 routed over two separate tunnels?
Post by: broquea on March 09, 2010, 07:56:47 AM
Hi
Would it be possible to get the allocated /48 routed over two separate tunnels from the same pop? I would like to achieve some redundancy without the need of a ASN.
I realize that this wouldn't help if the pop goes out of service, but at least the subnet would stay reachable when one of my ISP's are down.

Thanks for a great service!
//Adam

The /48 is statically routed to 1 tunnel. It needs to be associated with a specific tunnel in the system since every tunnel is unique. If one of your links goes down, there is nothing on our side (tunnel-server) that says "oh hey, that is down". They are tunnels, not physical links, so no line/protocol alarms. Setting 2 static routes for the same range (BAD) could still send traffic towards your down tunnel, so you'd get packet loss far greater than you would probably like, potentially 100% if the route selection never changes.

Piojan has a great idea. Especially with being able to script against our PHP page that lets you update the endpoint on the fly.
Title: Re: /48 routed over two separate tunnels?
Post by: kryptic on March 09, 2010, 10:23:51 AM
Thanks for your answers.

I must agree, if there is no signaling which tears down the tunnel when the remote end is not responding, that would make a huge risk of traffic black-holing using static routes.

I will seriously consider the idea of implementing scripts to achieve redundancy instead.

Thanks again
//Adam