On 29/11/2011, at 4:14 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 01:29:41 AM P C wrote:
I think t-mobile is running public customer trials with
IPV6-only customers and NAT64. You can sign up here:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2010/07/t-m
obile-ipv6-open-trial.html
On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:01:32 PM Tom Lanyon
wrote:
What are people using for an internal NAT64 prefix?
We are using a /96 from within our PA allocation.
One thing IOS XE seems to do is accept only one Pref64
prefixes for the entire chassis. We have scenarios where we
might want
On 01/12/2011, at 4:16 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
What are people using for an internal NAT64 prefix?
We are using a /96 from within our PA allocation.
Good to know.
One thing IOS XE seems to do is accept only one Pref64
prefixes for the entire chassis. We have scenarios where we
might want
On 01/12/2011, at 11:29 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
1. WKP (which you say isn't working - we haven't
gone that route, so don't know).
It's not that it doesn't work, it's not supported. :)
(config)#nat64 prefix stateful 64:ff9b::/96
%NAT64: Cannot use the well-known
On Thursday, December 01, 2011 09:07:15 AM Tom Lanyon wrote:
It's not that it doesn't work, it's not supported. :)
(config)#nat64 prefix stateful 64:ff9b::/96
%NAT64: Cannot use the well-known prefix
64:FF9B::/96
for a stateful prefix
If I understand the documentation
On Thursday, December 01, 2011 07:54:25 AM Tom Lanyon wrote:
My understanding from the options available in the IOS XE
CLI (we're on 3.4.0aS) is that I can assign another
pref64 to an interface, instead of using the globally
assigned prefix.
Yes, your options:
1. WKP (which you say
On Tuesday, November 22, 2011 05:55:09 PM Gert Doering
wrote:
Can you give some more details on that? You really have
IPv6-only customers?
Not yet :-). Only test subjects, today.
We're anticipating this scenario when we serve up our final
v4 address to customers. Projection is about 2 - 3
I think t-mobile is running public customer trials with IPV6-only
customers and NAT64. You can sign up here:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2010/07/t-mobile-ipv6-open-trial.html
(google cache link to more details since google groups is throwing 500
errors right now when accessed
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 01:29:41 AM P C wrote:
I think t-mobile is running public customer trials with
IPV6-only customers and NAT64. You can sign up here:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2010/07/t-m
obile-ipv6-open-trial.html
We have ours working - of course, Skype and
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:59:53PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
We've deployed some ASR1006's for NAT44 and NAT64.
The NAT44 is for our IPTv VoD service (Unicast), while the
NAT64 is for IPv6-only customers trying to reach IPv4-only
resources.
Can you give some more details on that? You
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On
Behalf Of Johnson, Neil M
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:49 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] ASA vs. ASR for large Wireless NAT deployment ?
We have a large campus wireless (~8-10K clients simultaneously) network
that we
On Saturday, November 12, 2011 06:48:35 AM Johnson, Neil M
wrote:
One requirement is that the NAT device not mangle IPv6
and only NAT IPv4 traffic destined to the Internet (we
route some private address space internally).
Any recommendations ?
We've deployed some ASR1006's for NAT44 and
We have a large campus wireless (~8-10K clients simultaneously) network
that we are considering moving to private address space and NAT'ing to the
outside world.
I'm looking at the ASA 5585 with SSP20 or an ASA 1004 with an ESP20 and
RP2.
One requirement is that the NAT device not mangle IPv6
13 matches
Mail list logo
