Scalable for 6000+ subscribers? From: timothy steele Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] NAT64
OpenBSD https://youtu.be/RPsis5U4xx0 http://davidcrumpton.blogspot.com/2014/04/ipv6-only-network-with-dns64-nat64-and.html?m=1 On Mon, Aug 1, 2016, 5:48 PM Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: 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.
