Are you using /31 for PTP links, or maybe unnumbered links?
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:48 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. > >
