> 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.
With NAT64 you will still need one public routeable IPv4 address just the same as if you did dual stack with with NATed IPv4 addresses. Unless there is something I do not know here? No matter how you do it I am very interested how it all turns out and hope you keep us all posted. > -----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. > >
