We can, but at the edge, to talk to a V4 host you need a publically routable
V4 address.
We will be out of addresses very soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
Why not dual stack them with IPv6 and a NATed IPv4 IP? I thought
100.64.0.0/10 private space was just for that purpose. Seems to be
what most cellphones are doing.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote:
Our V6 only customers need to connect to V4 only destinations.
From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
Why use NAT64 again?
I thought we all just route out IPv6 blocks to customers on DHCPv6, no NAT
required.
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 3:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AFMUG] NAT64
Still searching for a good solution to go IPV6 only with the subs. Takes
a
pretty expensive piece of hardware at the core router to do NAT64 in a
carrier class manner. If anyone has suggestions I am anxious to learn.
